FUR: PIRATE ART WARNING
RedWolf885
Sorry about posting this again, but I got several "improperly tagged" e-mails
after I first posted it and don't know which newsgroups the messages were from.
The lines below this paragraph are a mass mailng that
Mr. Sean Foltz (President of the furry fan club "S.O.S.! Save Our Skunks!" and
publisher of the fanzine "Skunk Aficionado") sent to everyfur in his address
list. I felt that I should pass it on to as many others as I could.
Greetings my fellow furries.
Any of you who read the con report in isssue #2 of Skunk Aficionado may
recal having read about someone selling pirate copies of the work of
Shon Howell and Jim Hardiman at last years Albany Anthro Con.
The other day I received a letter from this person, his name is Larry
Wolfe and he's based out of Florida. In his letter he stated that he
read the report in SA#2 and wanted to set the record straight.
He claims that he is not selling copies, but is infact, selling art from
fanzines and portfolios that he pruchased and has decided to break up.
He then went on to state that he doesn't feel that scalping other
peoples art is wrong and that he intends to continue doing so whether
the artists approve or not.
As an additional touch of arogance, he also bragged that he had bought
several rescent products by Shon, Jim and others, as well as copies of
Skunk Aficionado, and that after he removed what he wanted to keep for
himself, he was going to break up and sell the rest at a profit.
I've spoken with Jim and a few others on this and the unfortunate
consencus is that there is little in the way of legal recourse for us.
However, we can still stop him through other means. I sent Ed Zolna a
letter this morning telling him about Mr Wolfe and asking him to refrain
from selling anything else to him. Jim, Shon and myself are also trying
to get the folks running this years AAC to stop him from selling stuff
there as well.
In addition to all of this, we are all contacting all of our friends and
fans and spreading the word about this guy so that we can hopefully get
him banned from attending other cons, as well as see to it that no one
will buy from him at the ones that he does manage to attend. With luck,
he'll stop after he sees that there is no profit to be had.
So what I'm asking all of you to do is to let everyone that you can know
about Larry Wolfe - tell your friends, post the situation on furry news
groups, warn con organisers about his actions and recomend that they ban
him, tell folks on the mucks or just public shout the situation.
I must emphasise though that no one should take any direct action
against him - don't send him hate mail, don't beat him up, don't mail
Shon, Jim or I his head on a silver platter - in other words, don't do
anything to stop him that is illegal.
Thanks in advance for your help and if you come up with an idea on this,
please feel free to share it with everyone.
Ostrich
I'm missing the point of this, I think. If all he's doing is
buying art, and then reselling it at a higher price, how is
that objectionable? He's paying the price that the original
sellers are asking - it's difficult to claim that he's doing
them harm by purchasing their products. The conclusion I'd
draw from this is that the artists could obviously be charging
more for their work, since people are willing to pay it.
-Ostrich! <")
Farlo
Ostrich did speaketh thus:
>If all he's doing is
>buying art, and then reselling it at a higher price, how is
>that objectionable? He's paying the price that the original
>sellers are asking - it's difficult to claim that he's doing
>them harm by purchasing their products.
>
I do not have a portfolio, but:
It's simple - if I sold portfolios of 10 images at $10, singles at
$1.50, most people are going to buy the portfolio. Along comes this
guy, and sells singles out of my portfolio for $1 (at no profit - what
a guy!). Each of his customers no longer needs to buy that particular
image from that portfolio. If people really only want 2-3 images out
of a 10-image book, I stand to lose 2-3 potential portfolio customers
for the cost of *one* customer. After all, why pay $10 when you can
select the images that you really want and pay $3 for 3? Sure, he
bought *one* book - but he directly cost me 2-3 portfolio sales and/or
5 or more single image sales.
IMO, that's why people might get upset.
-------------------
Farlo m>*_*<m
Urban Fey Dragon
Standard XXXX
@abac.com XXXX
-------------------
These people don't approve of spam (AFAIK) and
e-mail sent to them will get you in trouble:
postmaster@[127.0.0.1]
abuse@[127.0.0.1]
MAILER-DAEMON@[127.0.0.1]
.@[127.0.0.1]
..@[127.0.0.1]
root@[127.0.0.1]
Tim Gadd
ost...@fysh.org (Ostrich) wrote:
>I'm missing the point of this, I think. If all he's doing is
>buying art, and then reselling it at a higher price, how is
>that objectionable? He's paying the price that the original
>sellers are asking - it's difficult to claim that he's doing
>them harm by purchasing their products. The conclusion I'd
>draw from this is that the artists could obviously be charging
>more for their work, since people are willing to pay it.
I agree. So long as the guy isn't actually making illegal copies of
the art, how is there a problem? There are, I think copyright laws now
which allow the artist some control over the commercial future of an
original artwork, but not over laser prints from some portfolio.
--
Tim Gadd
Hobart, Tasmania
Lupercal .com
@wolf-web
Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Coffeehouse/1161/
'We see the moon but cannot remember its meaning.'
- Edward Brathwaite
Tim Gadd
stan...@abac.com (Farlo) wrote:
>Ostrich did speaketh thus:
>>If all he's doing is
>>buying art, and then reselling it at a higher price, how is
>>that objectionable? He's paying the price that the original
>>sellers are asking - it's difficult to claim that he's doing
>>them harm by purchasing their products.
>>
>I do not have a portfolio, but:
>It's simple - if I sold portfolios of 10 images at $10, singles at
>$1.50, most people are going to buy the portfolio. Along comes this
>guy, and sells singles out of my portfolio for $1 (at no profit - what
>a guy!). Each of his customers no longer needs to buy that particular
>image from that portfolio. If people really only want 2-3 images out
>of a 10-image book, I stand to lose 2-3 potential portfolio customers
>for the cost of *one* customer. After all, why pay $10 when you can
>select the images that you really want and pay $3 for 3? Sure, he
>bought *one* book - but he directly cost me 2-3 portfolio sales and/or
>5 or more single image sales.
This scenario only seems likely to be harmful to you if he buys up
large quantities of your portfolios, and sells the individual prints
at no profit. I suppose he might do such a thing, but it seems sort of
odd to me, because once he has one copy each of the prints he wants
for himself, what is his motivation to keep buying mutliple copies of
your portfolios?
Doodles
On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 11:59:25 GMT, ost...@fysh.org (Ostrich) wrote:
>I'm missing the point of this, I think. If all he's doing is
>buying art, and then reselling it at a higher price, how is
>that objectionable? He's paying the price that the original
>sellers are asking - it's difficult to claim that he's doing
>them harm by purchasing their products. The conclusion I'd
>draw from this is that the artists could obviously be charging
>more for their work, since people are willing to pay it.
All I know is, if I see him doing it, I have a very potent weapon to
use against him. =};-3
Unca Spooge, who learned a lesson at CF9 that he's _never_ going to
forget...
Ostrich
Doodles (doo...@cheezies.primenet.com) wrote:
: All I know is, if I see him doing it, I have a very potent weapon to
: use against him. =};-3
: Unca Spooge, who learned a lesson at CF9 that he's _never_ going to
: forget..
Well? It's mean to leave a narrative hook dangling...
-Ostrich! <")
Micole Khemarrica
Farlo wrote:
> Ostrich did speaketh thus:
> >buying art, and then reselling it at a higher price, how is
> >that objectionable? He's paying the price that the original
> >sellers are asking - it's difficult to claim that he's doing
> >them harm by purchasing their products.
> >
>
>
> It's simple - if I sold portfolios of 10 images at $10, singles at
> $1.50, most people are going to buy the portfolio. Along comes this
> guy, and sells singles out of my portfolio for $1 (at no profit - what
> a guy!). Each of his customers no longer needs to buy that particular
> image from that portfolio. If people really only want 2-3 images out
> of a 10-image book, I stand to lose 2-3 potential portfolio customers
> for the cost of *one* customer. After all, why pay $10 when you can
> select the images that you really want and pay $3 for 3? Sure, he
> bought *one* book - but he directly cost me 2-3 portfolio sales and/or
> 5 or more single image sales.
>
When you purchase a portfolio, you are buying a set. The artist did not
intend for those plates to be sold on an individual level and probably
intentionally undervalued the items singly so that you would be getting
a 'deal' with the portfolio.
If this person (from the information posted) claims he is making a
profit, he is selling the single plates at more than the value the
artist placed on them. Buying a set for this purpose is called Scalping,
essentially speculating the artwork. Now, while this area is rather
fuzzy and grey and some people may not understand how this is bad, let
me give it to you in simple terms for the case of AAC:
1) If the Artist has not given permission of that supplier to sell the
artwork, it can't be sold. It is the Artist's Right to sell sahn's art
and only in those cases of APAs and group projects would there be any
other considerations (in other words, it is assumed that YARF! has
permission by the individual artists to publish their works in each
issue, therefore it is alright to sell the issues at AAC). If the Artist
is at the con and tells Staff that a vender is illegally selling the
Artist's Work, the situation will be dealt with appropriately.
2) In _MY_ opinion, scalping is harmful to the artist. There's a
difference between Person A with my art having Person B comming up and
saying "Would you be willing to part with 'toy' from your collection? I
really want it!" and Person A _telling_ Person B "Psst! Wanna buy a copy
of 'toy'? I got it here..." It is especially harmful if the portfolio
is still being produced -- it discourages potential sales.
I understand about speculation... but I also understand that part of the
challenge of speculation is determining the worth and quantities
available. Speculation is a really volitile market and can hurt a lot of
people when its done. Undermining your source is a good way to get that
source to go away, thereby collapsing your speculation. Please don't do
it.
I got a friend who bought a ton of Magic Cards... he took what he
wanted, then _handed_ the rest over to his friends. I know people who
bought boxes of Magic Cards as a speculation scheme to sell the cards
and got burned when WOTC decided to reissue the valuable cards in a new
series. Most artists out there don't have the money WOTC has to ignore
(or encourage) speculation. So, if you want to speculate, may I suggest
beanie babies? :3
Lisa Jennings, Artists Alley Authority at AAC98
[Undo the Knot to Reply.]
Ostrich
Micole Khemarrica (Same...@SamePlace.com) wrote:
: 1) If the Artist has not given permission of that supplier to sell the
: artwork, it can't be sold. It is the Artist's Right to sell sahn's art
: and only in those cases of APAs and group projects would there be any
: other considerations (in other words, it is assumed that YARF! has
: permission by the individual artists to publish their works in each
: issue, therefore it is alright to sell the issues at AAC). If the Artist
: is at the con and tells Staff that a vender is illegally selling the
: Artist's Work, the situation will be dealt with appropriately.
I think you're setting a very dangerous precedent by allowing someone
to say who is and isn't allowed to sell their products. Certainly
someone who sells illegally-made copies should be stopped. In this
case, though, we're talking about someone who is trying to sell
merchandise which he purchased and owns outright. If the artist
wants to keep complete control over the work, he should simply
exhibit it, and not sell prints or allow it to be published. The
art I won is purchased for my own enjoyment, and not for speculation
(although the Don Bluth stuff has shot way up!). Nevertheless,
I'd be strongly disinclined to purchase anything from an artist who
tried to control my right to dispose of my purchases in the manner
and at the price of my choosing.
-Ostrich! <")
Allen Kitchen
Ostrich <ost...@fysh.org> wrote in article
<898786420.19479.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> Micole Khemarrica (Same...@SamePlace.com) wrote:
>
> : 1) If the Artist has not given permission of that supplier to sell the
> : artwork, it can't be sold.
> I think you're setting a very dangerous precedent by allowing someone
> to say who is and isn't allowed to sell their products.
I hope Ma Mel answers this definatively, but here is my .02$ on
the matter.
The artist agreed to sell the portfolio; not the individual prints. Much
as a writer sells an entire story, not a chapter. It is just as wrong to
take a print and resell it as it is to take a book apart chapter by chapter
and sell the individual parts. Sure, you bought the book. You did NOT
buy the rights to sell the book however, in whole or in part. Same rules
apply.
There is a difference between selling one or two prints to friends, and
largescale reselling of merchandise. The artist still has copywrite
protection. If I went to a bookstore and bought a collection of art,
then sold the individual pages just outside their doors, I would expect
to be prosecuted since I don't have the artist's permission to resell the
individual peices of his work.
If our scalper wishes to resell the complete portfolios, there really
isn't much anyone can do. BUT, if he is breaking them up, then he
isn't selling what he bought anymore. He is now selling a different
product, without the artist's authorization or compensation. Here is
where the law can come into play.
And if the scalper objects, saying he bought the art, insist on seeing
the receipts for each piece of art. If he doesn't have them, he doesn't
have a case. If he shows the reciept for the portfolio, then he must
resell the entire portfolio.
As an example: I cannot buy Office97 and then sell Word and Excel
seperately.
Were I the scalper, I'd take a hard look at the OfficeSuite example and
rethink my position.
allen Kitchen (shockwave)
Brian O'connell
Well, from what I've seen, it's a smattering of those who say there's
nothing wrong with the jerk ripping off the artists, and secondly the
lawyers for AAC saying that artists don't have the right to tell him to not
copy their artwork... Hrmmm, well, in that case, I have no choice but to
discontinue producing any
portfolios in the future, and to cease electronic distribution of my art,
not to mention after completing outstanding orders, to cease producing furry
art in the future... I would advise all furry artists to do the same...
Thanks alot gang, but I'm simply tired of dealing with it, I'll go and grab
some kinda commercial art jobs, where at least I can see the faces of the
people who're ripping me off... So now you guys have legal recourse against
this guy, because you have written proof that he is infringing on my freedom
of speech/expression, since I won't be working anymore... Happy now?
Allen Kitchen wrote in message <01bda04e$2d1bc5d0$8f301bc6@spgspare>...
Jeff Mancebo
Farlo wrote:
> It's simple - if I sold portfolios of 10 images at $10, singles at
> $1.50, most people are going to buy the portfolio. Along comes this
> guy, and sells singles out of my portfolio for $1 (at no profit - what
> a guy!). Each of his customers no longer needs to buy that particular
> image from that portfolio. If people really only want 2-3 images out
> of a 10-image book, I stand to lose 2-3 potential portfolio customers
> for the cost of *one* customer. After all, why pay $10 when you can
> select the images that you really want and pay $3 for 3? Sure, he
> bought *one* book - but he directly cost me 2-3 portfolio sales and/or
> 5 or more single image sales.
boojum smiles.. "But he allready said the guy was selling the
individual pieces for MORE than the cost of the collections. This means
either the collection is being sold for to little, or the individual
plates are being sold for to much."
"The point is that what the person is doing is both Legally and
Ethically sound. He is using his money to purchase bulk (the
collection) which he then sells individually. We may not like the fact
that he is breaking up collections, but that is within his rights as the
purchaser."
He shakes his head, "Whatever it is, it's NOT Pirate Art, so we
might want to change the name of the thread."
boojum the brown bunny
Brian O'connell
Actually, what he's specifically doing, from what I've seen in the e-mail,
is buying portfolios, and using them as masters for the production of
reproduced works, not breaking up the original portfolios and repackaging
them...
Jeff Mancebo wrote in message <35927B19...@bigger.net>...
Tim Gadd
"Allen Kitchen" <all...@blkbox.com> wrote:
>There is a difference between selling one or two prints to friends, and
>largescale reselling of merchandise. The artist still has copywrite
>protection. If I went to a bookstore and bought a collection of art,
>then sold the individual pages just outside their doors, I would expect
>to be prosecuted since I don't have the artist's permission to resell the
>individual peices of his work.
>If our scalper wishes to resell the complete portfolios, there really
>isn't much anyone can do. BUT, if he is breaking them up, then he
>isn't selling what he bought anymore. He is now selling a different
>product, without the artist's authorization or compensation. Here is
>where the law can come into play.
Nah, I reckon they should have wrecker's yards for art and stories.
Some place where you could go in looking for a stanza from a 1957
Ginsberg.
Brian O'connell
<BIG snip!> Doh! I hate how scattered these NG sorta things get, never mind
about the reproduction thingie...
Leigh Kimmel
In article <898786420.19479.0...@news.demon.co.uk>
ost...@fysh.org (Ostrich) writes:
> I think you're setting a very dangerous precedent by allowing someone
> to say who is and isn't allowed to sell their products. Certainly
> someone who sells illegally-made copies should be stopped. In this
> case, though, we're talking about someone who is trying to sell
> merchandise which he purchased and owns outright. If the artist
> wants to keep complete control over the work, he should simply
> exhibit it, and not sell prints or allow it to be published. The
> art I won is purchased for my own enjoyment, and not for speculation
> (although the Don Bluth stuff has shot way up!). Nevertheless,
> I'd be strongly disinclined to purchase anything from an artist who
> tried to control my right to dispose of my purchases in the manner
> and at the price of my choosing.
Agreed -- and it's also perilous to moralize about profit. I've seen
both sides of the fence. I'm an artist, and I also help a good friend
with his tables in the dealers' room. While I would definitely object
to someone making unauthorized copies of my art to sell, I also
recognize that legitimate retail sales is not a leisure activity, and a
dealer has expenses to meet (hotel room, tables, membership, gas, etc.)
and then should expect to have some return above this for his/her work
(and sitting dealers' tables is work -- you've got to keep alert for
customers, remain calm and polite even when facing the occasional
obstrepterous customer, and often forego other activities that are
happening during the hours the dealers' room is open). Therefore, I
would not object to someone buying a large number of prints of one of
my pieces wholesale and then reselling them individually at a higher
price. That's the way retail sales works -- it brings the product to
the potential buyer who might not have access to it otherwise. And by
selling wholesale to a dealer, I would make sales I wouldn't otherwise,
by getting my art to conventions and customers I don't get to. The
dealer pays me up front and assumes all the risk that the items may not
sell, or could be damaged in transit and be rendered unsaleable (the
alternative would be to sell on consignment, in which I would share in
the risk and not be paid my share until each item actually sold to a
customer).
"I have a right to be blind sometimes... I really don't see the
signal!"
-- Admiral Lord Nelson
Leigh Kimmel -- writer, artist and historian
kim...@siu.edu http://members.tripod.com/~kimmel/lhkwebpage.html
Listowner of Virtual Selyn, the Sime~Gen mailing list,
sime...@siu.edu
Ask me how to order the new Sime~Gen novel
Jeff Mancebo
Micole Khemarrica wrote:
>
> 1) If the Artist has not given permission of that supplier to sell the
> and only in those cases of APAs and group projects would there be any
> other considerations (in other words, it is assumed that YARF! has
> permission by the individual artists to publish their works in each
> issue, therefore it is alright to sell the issues at AAC). If the Artist
> is at the con and tells Staff that a vender is illegally selling the
> Artist's Work, the situation will be dealt with appropriately.
boojum shakes his head. "This is patently untrue. If the supplier
has LEGALLY purchased the art or collection it is their right to sell it
to someone else. There is no need to get the artists permission to
resell the product."
> 2) In _MY_ opinion, scalping is harmful to the artist. There's a
> difference between Person A with my art having Person B comming up and
> saying "Would you be willing to part with 'toy' from your collection? I
> really want it!" and Person A _telling_ Person B "Psst! Wanna buy a copy
> of 'toy'? I got it here..." It is especially harmful if the portfolio
> is still being produced -- it discourages potential sales.
The brown bunny nods.. "It CAN be harmfull. It can put an artist
out of business. It is also LEGAL though."
boojum the brown bunny
Ostrich
Allen Kitchen (all...@blkbox.com) wrote:
: The artist agreed to sell the portfolio; not the individual prints. Much
If it was an explicit condition of the original sale that the portfolio
had to be resold as a unit (or any other restriction) well and good - the
person would have nothing of which to complain. It sounds to me though
like this is a condition that's being imposed after ownership of the
prints has already changed hands. To me, at least, it's a frightening
idea that I can buy something, and then later if I decide to sell it the
manufacturer can come back and decide how much money I can charge for it,
and under what conditions it can be sold.
-Ostrich! <")
Jeff Mancebo
Allen Kitchen wrote:
> The artist agreed to sell the portfolio; not the individual prints. Much
> take a print and resell it as it is to take a book apart chapter by chapter
> and sell the individual parts. Sure, you bought the book. You did NOT
> buy the rights to sell the book however, in whole or in part. Same rules
> apply.
boojum shakes his head. "Untrue... If you bought the book you DID
buy the rights to resell the book. If you want evidence look at all
the Used Book Stores in america. It has been upheld time after time in
court that the purchaser has the right to do what they want with the
origional as long as they do not make copies."
"If you buy a book on Space Art, clip out one page and hang it on
the wall you are mutilating the book.. but you are not breaking any
laws. If you burn the book, rip the book into shreds, or sell the book
to someone else you have STILL not broken any laws. If you PHOTOCOPY
the book, then you have broken the law."
>
> There is a difference between selling one or two prints to friends, and
> largescale reselling of merchandise. The artist still has copywrite
> protection. If I went to a bookstore and bought a collection of art,
> then sold the individual pages just outside their doors, I would expect
> to be prosecuted since I don't have the artist's permission to resell the
> individual peices of his work.
boojum shakes his head. "People do this all the time and it is
legal. It falls under the Fair Use laws. If you purchase an item you
have the RIGHT to sell it, it whatever condition you choose providing
you can find a buyer."
> If our scalper wishes to resell the complete portfolios, there really
> isn't much anyone can do. BUT, if he is breaking them up, then he
> isn't selling what he bought anymore. He is now selling a different
> product, without the artist's authorization or compensation. Here is
> where the law can come into play.
boojum shakes his head again. "The courts say otherwise."
>
> And if the scalper objects, saying he bought the art, insist on seeing
> the receipts for each piece of art. If he doesn't have them, he doesn't
> have a case. If he shows the reciept for the portfolio, then he must
> resell the entire portfolio.
"Again this is untrue. If you want to you can cut each picture up
into 20 different pieces and sell each portion of the picture to someone
different."
>
> As an example: I cannot buy Office97 and then sell Word and Excel
> seperately.
boojum grins at you.. "Thats because you do not BUY Office97...
You LEASE it. Check the documentation when you get it. Because it is a
lease it falls under different laws. The company has the right to
determine more about it. If you own the Lease it doesn't matter WHERE
you get your copies from. We just went through this at work."
"If you purchase a lease for Office 97 you may install ANY release
of it up to the revision number listed on the lease from ANY source."
boojum the brown bunny
Brian O'connell
Okay then, do exactly what many prepackaged snack manufacturers and
cigarrette manufacturers do with bulk packs of candy bars, cigarrettes, etc:
Print "Not intended (or Marked) for individual sale" on them, problem
solved...
Jeff Mancebo wrote in message <35928227...@bigger.net>...
Allen Kitchen
Brian O'connell <br...@nospam.vivid.net> wrote in article
<6mttks$lej$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...
> Well, from what I've seen, it's a smattering of those who say there's
> nothing wrong with the jerk ripping off the artists, and secondly the
> lawyers for AAC saying that artists don't have the right to tell him to
not
> copy their artwork...
Actually Brian, everyone seems to be firmly in the "That's wrong" camp.
Folks are trying to determine what the legal bit is, since it's a bit of a
grey area. It will be resolved soon, and probably against mr. Wolfe.
Sorry to see you are so fed up with everything. I've enjoyed your work,
and so have many others. Sure, there are people who copy stuff. The
same is true in print media as well. And at least in our little world
here,
where everyone knows everyone, the bad guys are detectable.
I wish you the best, in whatever you decide. You've a talent and a gift,
one people like me will never possess and will always envy.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
Allen Kitchen
Jeff Mancebo <je...@bigger.net> wrote in article
<35927E64...@bigger.net>...
> Micole Khemarrica wrote:
> >
> > 1) If the Artist has not given permission of that supplier to sell the
> > artwork, it can't be sold. It is the Artist's Right to sell sahn's art
> > and only in those cases of APAs and group projects would there be any
> > other considerations (in other words, it is assumed that YARF! has
> > permission by the individual artists to publish their works in each
> > issue, therefore it is alright to sell the issues at AAC). If the
Artist
> > is at the con and tells Staff that a vender is illegally selling the
> > Artist's Work, the situation will be dealt with appropriately.
>
> boojum shakes his head. "This is patently untrue. If the supplier
> has LEGALLY purchased the art or collection it is their right to sell it
> to someone else. There is no need to get the artists permission to
> resell the product."
That product being, the entire compliation. Not just parts of it.
Unlike a car, the individual parts of a compliation are still copyrighted
as individual artworks. So if you break up the set, you aren't reselling
what you purchased anymore.
Can you legally break up a package of Office97 and sell the parts?
Same thing you know...
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
Allen Kitchen
Jeff Mancebo <je...@bigger.net> wrote in article
<35928227...@bigger.net>...
> Allen Kitchen wrote:
> > The artist agreed to sell the portfolio; not the individual prints.
Much
> > as a writer sells an entire story, not a chapter. It is just as wrong
to
> > take a print and resell it as it is to take a book apart chapter by
chapter
> > and sell the individual parts. Sure, you bought the book. You did NOT
> > buy the rights to sell the book however, in whole or in part. Same
rules
> > apply.
>
> boojum shakes his head. "Untrue... If you bought the book you DID
> buy the rights to resell the book. If you want evidence look at all
> the Used Book Stores in america. It has been upheld time after time in
> court that the purchaser has the right to do what they want with the
> origional as long as they do not make copies."
These are complete books though, not parts. And I don't
have the right to collect favorite chapters of different stories and
sell them as a custom compilation, now do I?
> boojum shakes his head. "People do this all the time and it is
> legal. It falls under the Fair Use laws. If you purchase an item you
> have the RIGHT to sell it, it whatever condition you choose providing
> you can find a buyer."
If that were the case, then people who buy and scalp tickets to
sporting events and concerts wouldn't be arrested, now would they?
And the scalping laws would be thrown out, wouldn't they? But lots
of people go to jail for such things. Routinely.
> boojum shakes his head again. "The courts say otherwise."
Tell that to those who get arrested for reselling superbowl tickets
for a profit.
> > As an example: I cannot buy Office97 and then sell Word and Excel
> > seperately.
>
> boojum grins at you.. "Thats because you do not BUY Office97...
> You LEASE it.
Yes, software companies have an interesting arrangement. But isn't
buying a work of art just the same thing? You don't own the art, or
the character, or the rights to either. You own what you purchased:
a compilation of works.
I'll grant you, this is a grey area. But I have the feeling that since
you can't scalp software or football tickets, you cannot legally scalp
art portfolios either. Perhaps artists must put on the cover of the
compilations that the art inside is sold as a package, and is not to
be resold except as a package. That the artist maintains the rights
to the characters within, and opening the package constitutes
acceptance of the agreement. That would nail the matter down...
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
Jeff Mancebo
Brian O'connell wrote:
>
> Well, from what I've seen, it's a smattering of those who say there's
> nothing wrong with the jerk ripping off the artists, and secondly the
> lawyers for AAC saying that artists don't have the right to tell him to not
boojum cocks his head.. "NO one has said this. The artists
DEFINITLY have a right to tell the guy not to COPY their work. And AAC
has the right to have them arrested if they DO sell copies. The guy
isn't copying their work, he's buying it and reselling it."
> discontinue producing any
> portfolios in the future, and to cease electronic distribution of my art,
> not to mention after completing outstanding orders, to cease producing furry
> art in the future... I would advise all furry artists to do the same...
> Thanks alot gang, but I'm simply tired of dealing with it, I'll go and grab
> some kinda commercial art jobs, where at least I can see the faces of the
> people who're ripping me off... So now you guys have legal recourse against
> this guy, because you have written proof that he is infringing on my freedom
> of speech/expression, since I won't be working anymore... Happy now?
boojum looks sad. "It would be a loss for you to do this, but it is
your choice. This person is not infringing on your freedom of speech or
expression though. It is yourself that is keeping you from creating the
art. I hope someday you can again share your art with us."
boojum the brown bunny
Allen Kitchen
Ostrich <ost...@fysh.org> wrote in article
<898793670.8956.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> Allen Kitchen (all...@blkbox.com) wrote:
>
> : The artist agreed to sell the portfolio; not the individual prints.
Much
>
>
> If it was an explicit condition of the original sale that the portfolio
> had to be resold as a unit (or any other restriction) well and good - the
> person would have nothing of which to complain. It sounds to me though
> like this is a condition that's being imposed after ownership of the
> prints has already changed hands. To me, at least, it's a frightening
> idea that I can buy something, and then later if I decide to sell it the
> manufacturer can come back and decide how much money I can charge for it,
> and under what conditions it can be sold.
Suppose for a moment, you drew a portfolio. Perhaps all G rated
stuff with snuggly bunnies and fuzzy kittens. Would you like to see your
works broken up and sold with hardcore material in the pouch? Perhaps
even in the very pouch YOU sent it out in? That's a scenario to think
about
if we follow your line.
If I sell a story to a magazine, they don't have the right to resell it to
another magazine for a profit. The rights to a story are not
transferrable.
So if I sell to Amazing Stories, I don't need to worry about a chapter
being
printed in Penthouse instead. Shouldn't compilations work the same way?
You are buying one thing: the compilation. You are buying the rights for
one collection, not the rights for the individual works.
Someone needs to research the law as it applies to art compilations.
I find it hard to believe I can just buy books from different artists in
Barnes and
Noble, mix all the pages up, and then legally resell it to the public.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
Jeff Mancebo
Brian O'connell wrote:
>
> Actually, what he's specifically doing, from what I've seen in the e-mail,
> is buying portfolios, and using them as masters for the production of
> reproduced works, not breaking up the original portfolios and repackaging
> them...
boojum grins, "If thats what he's doing then by all means NAIL him.
That is illegal and he can be prosicuted. However the origional post
said that:
"His letter basically said that he was simply buying portfolios and then
taking the stuff he didn't want and selling it to people. He said that
he didn't feel that he was doing anything wrong and didn't care if Shon,
Jim or anyone didn't want him to do so. He then proceeded to inform me
that he will continue to do so and that he intends to also sell Skunk
Aficionado as well."
That means he's BUYING the origionals, keeping what he wants, and
selling the rest. As far as I know thats Legal."
boojum the brown bunny
nsha...@my-dejanews.com
In article <01bda04e$2d1bc5d0$8f301bc6@spgspare>,> <898786420.19479.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> > Micole Khemarrica (Same...@SamePlace.com) wrote:
> >
> > : 1) If the Artist has not given permission of that supplier to sell the
> > : artwork, it can't be sold.
>
> > to say who is and isn't allowed to sell their products.
>
> the matter.
>
> take a print and resell it as it is to take a book apart chapter by chapter
> and sell the individual parts. Sure, you bought the book. You did NOT
> buy the rights to sell the book however, in whole or in part. Same rules
> apply.
With all due respect and apologies, I believe that when you purchase the
artwork, you purchase the artwork. You may not purchase the right to copy the
artwork, nor the right to use that artwork in another product, but you have
purchased the artwork, and have the right to dispose of that artwork in any
fashion that you see fit.
If my "purchase" of a piece of art does not allow me to sell that physical
object to another person, then what have I bought? Only the right to view the
artwork? I believe THIS to be a truly pernicious doctrine.
Now while I do not buy artwork with the intent of selling it (if I like
something, I want to KEEP it...but then I'm a packrat by nature). But if an
artist were to inform me that I did not have the right to resell a piece of
artwork that I had purchased from him (or her) I would have a LONG talk with
my attorney about the matter. And if it became the general policy that
original pieces of art could not be resold without artist permission, I would
cease purchasing artwork.
-- N. C. Shapero --
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Brian O'connell
>Brian O'connell wrote:
>>
>> Well, from what I've seen, it's a smattering of those who say there's
>> nothing wrong with the jerk ripping off the artists, and secondly the
>> lawyers for AAC saying that artists don't have the right to tell him to
not
>> copy their artwork... Hrmmm, well, in that case, I have no choice but to
>
> boojum cocks his head.. "NO one has said this. The artists
>DEFINITLY have a right to tell the guy not to COPY their work. And AAC
>has the right to have them arrested if they DO sell copies. The guy
>isn't copying their work, he's buying it and reselling it."
But however there's been plenty saying that because he bought the full
portfolio, that it's his property and therefore his right to resell, even if
it isn't in context or content... Lets put forward a scenario, kids, since
common sense economics have been mostly avoided in this matter:
The artist sells a portfolio to someone at a con who neither identifies
himself as a retailer or distributer, in the faith that it's someone who's
buying your work based on it's quality, not for one or two prints and then
selling the rest... Then that very buyer goes and resells the materials in
either sparse, or original packaging... Along the ways, this guy shows
around the retread portfolios, and sells a few, which someone else would
have been perfectly happy to purchase a complete copy of in it's original
format, maybe even find a print or two that they want more than the marginal
savings from one of these remanufactured portfolios... However, he neither
finds out who the original producer of the portfolios were (unless one puts
a copyright notice and mailing address on *every* single print), nor does he
find out there are other portfolios, let alone what prints he could have
gotten, unless fortunate to find a retailer handy... So in that sense, the
artist gets ripped off completely, losing a future sale, and the retailers
get ripped off, because if there's a remanufactured portfolio, chances are
it would occasionally use a recycled cover sheet/cover, and therefore they'd
have no reason to buy a legit portfolio (why buy duplicates?)...
>
>> discontinue producing any
>> portfolios in the future, and to cease electronic distribution of my art,
<clipped personal rantings>
>
> boojum looks sad. "It would be a loss for you to do this, but it is
>your choice. This person is not infringing on your freedom of speech or
>expression though. It is yourself that is keeping you from creating the
>art. I hope someday you can again share your art with us."
Technically, aversion therapy applies... IE: Negative stimuli to prevent a
habit or action from an individual or group... And really, a lot of the
ripoffs and bad attitudes I've gotten from furrydom and other genres at
large, have been doing just that... Have you or anyone else noticed I
haven't been drawing that much lately? Guess what, it isn't laziness...
>
> boojum the brown bunny
Jeff Mancebo
Brian O'connell wrote:
>
> Okay then, do exactly what many prepackaged snack manufacturers and
> cigarrette manufacturers do with bulk packs of candy bars, cigarrettes, etc:
> Print "Not intended (or Marked) for individual sale" on them, problem
> solved...
boojum smiles at Brian. "That means just that.. The individual
items are not marked nor were they intended for individual sales. If
you went out and bought a package of 100 plastic cups, then went to a
fair and sold them for .25 cents each, you are perfectly within your
right. Even though they were not marked nor intended for individual
sale."
"There is Software marked "Not for purchase outside of (x-bundle)"
However with Software you are really purchasing the Liscense, not the
product. A liscense is covered by different laws."
"And to truly complicate matters, a manufacturer CAN have a written
contract with a Retailer that says something can't be sold
individually. This falls under the First Sale clause of the Copyright
laws. If it is agreed to in writing they can limit how the first person
they sell the item to resells it. This does not limit anyone after the
first purchaser though."
boojum the brown bunny
Jeff Mancebo
Allen Kitchen wrote:
> That product being, the entire compliation. Not just parts of it.
> Unlike a car, the individual parts of a compliation are still copyrighted
> as individual artworks. So if you break up the set, you aren't reselling
> what you purchased anymore.
"However ownership of those individual copy's have left the artists
possession. According to the US Copyright Office if you legally
purchase a copyright item then you have the right to sell it under your
own conditions. The only exception is where there is mutilation or
alteration designed to impinge upon the honor or reputation of the
origional artist."
He smiles, "And if you break up the set you ARE selling what you
purchased. You still may not make a copy of it and it still falls under
the origional copyright. If it is no longer what you purchased then it
is a Derivative work and YOU own the copyright. Thats how the courts
view it."
>
> Can you legally break up a package of Office97 and sell the parts?
> Same thing you know...
"No its not." boojum answers. "Because you can not purchase
Office97. You can only purchase a liscense to use it. Read all the
fine print they provide with it (my work just went through all this)."
"When you "purchase" office 97 you are given a liscense to have
office 97 running on one machine, however you can install ANY office 97
up to the revision date on the Liscense, from any source."
"This is why you can get machines with Office97 (or Windows95 for
that matter) installed without getting the physical software. What you
own is the LIscense to operate it."
boojum the brown bunny
Jeff Mancebo
Allen Kitchen wrote:
> Suppose for a moment, you drew a portfolio. Perhaps all G rated
> stuff with snuggly bunnies and fuzzy kittens. Would you like to see your
> works broken up and sold with hardcore material in the pouch? Perhaps
> even in the very pouch YOU sent it out in? That's a scenario to think
> about
> if we follow your line.
boojum grins, "Actually the Copyright law covers this. It states
the the exceptions to the someone changing the work is when it corrupts
the Artists Honor or Reputation. That means that if they did something
like that you could get them."
"However they could buy the art from you, break it down, and sell it
with other stuff that does not corrupt your honor or reputation."
>
> If I sell a story to a magazine, they don't have the right to resell it to
> another magazine for a profit. The rights to a story are not
> transferrable.
"That is COPY's, silly. If you sell a story to a magazine YOU still
own the Copyright. If they REALLY wanted to they could sell 50,000
copies of their magazine, including your work, to another magazine.
That magazine can then cut OUT your article from each magazine and paste
it into theirs and sell THAT. However they can not scan in or print
your article themselves. They have bought the paper and ink your
article was created on, as you agreed to the magazine to do."
boojum the brown bunny
Jeff Mancebo
Allen Kitchen wrote:
>
> These are complete books though, not parts. And I don't
> have the right to collect favorite chapters of different stories and
> sell them as a custom compilation, now do I?
boojum laughs and says, "Actually, you do. If you buy the books,
cut chapters out of them, rebind them into a NEW book.. You can then
SELL THAT book to someone else. It is not, however, a custom
compilation because you have not done authoring of your own to make it a
unique work. Nor is it Derivative because you have not made at least
50% changes to the origional chapters. So you do not own a Copyright on
the book you just bound. You can not make copies. If you want another
you have to go buy the original books and cut them up again."
> If that were the case, then people who buy and scalp tickets to
> sporting events and concerts wouldn't be arrested, now would they?
> And the scalping laws would be thrown out, wouldn't they? But lots
> of people go to jail for such things. Routinely.
boojum shakes his head. "That is if you raise the price and that is
because while the ticket may gain you entrance what you are doing is
renting the seat for the duration of the game. If you were to sell a
Superbowl X ticket to someone for $10,000 it is perfectly legal,
provided they understand you are NOT giving them the Rental on the
Seat. They can hang it on the wall and it's just fine."
> Yes, software companies have an interesting arrangement. But isn't
> buying a work of art just the same thing? You don't own the art, or
> the character, or the rights to either. You own what you purchased:
> a compilation of works.
boojum grins again, "Not true.. According to the US Copyright Office
the physical work can be sold independantly of the Copyright. When you
sell the physical work then control over it passes from you. The
COPYRIGHT is all that remains, preventing them from making copies and
selling them."
>
> I'll grant you, this is a grey area. But I have the feeling that since
> you can't scalp software or football tickets, you cannot legally scalp
> art portfolios either. Perhaps artists must put on the cover of the
> compilations that the art inside is sold as a package, and is not to
> be resold except as a package. That the artist maintains the rights
> to the characters within, and opening the package constitutes
> acceptance of the agreement. That would nail the matter down...
"To the best of my knowledge reselling art is not called Scalping,
but I could be wrong. I've never run acrossed the term before. However
again, Scalping Tickets is really selling your rental of the seat to
someone else for an inflated price. Selling a collection of purchased
art of individually is selling your personal property. There is a BIG
difference and the courts have always been fairly clear on this..."
boojum the brown bunny
Allen Kitchen
Jeff Mancebo <je...@bigger.net> wrote in article
> Selling a collection of purchased
> art of individually is selling your personal property. There is a BIG
> difference and the courts have always been fairly clear on this..."
Boojum, you keep saying this. Not to sound hostile or
anything, but how do you know that's how the courts have
ruled? I don't claim to be a legal beagle (although I did
actually understand the lawspeak in the copyright office,
god have mercy on me) but do you have any insider info
on the matter? Some similar rulings perhaps? I'd like
to see them.
It is my view, that 106A/a3A and B prevents the "scalping"
of compilations, since:
(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. Subject to section 107
and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106,
the author of a work of visual art --
(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the
right
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other
modification of
that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and
any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a
violation
of that right, and
(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any
intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of
that right.
What constitutes prejudicing the artist? That's up to the artist to say.
After all, if certain images are only available in the portfolios, then a
scalper can cause both reputation and financial lose by his actions.
If the artist objects, and the scalper continues, then the artist
could (possibly) use this section to sue. Even if the scalper wins, that's
a lawsuit to defend against. It's hardly worth it, IMHO.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
Jeff Mancebo
Brian O'connell wrote:
boojum clips a large paragraph about what happens when people don't
deal in good faith. He looks over at Brian. "You are very correct, it
is NOT a nice thing to do. Artists create portfolio's for those people
interested in buying a set of their works. Basically they are rewarding
their loyal fans."
"I was merely talking about what the law had to say about such
practices. The law protects a number of distastefull things and frankly
this leaves the artists in something of a bind."
He sighs, ruffling his headfur. "They have three choices. They
could only sell prints and do NOT sell collections, which may make the
fans feel that the artist isn't providing them with a way to get groups
of images. They could sell Collections and run the risk of the
occasional person selling individual prints from the collection. Or
they can sell individual prints and only sell collections on an
individual basis, only to long time buyers or loyal fans."
boojum shakes his head.. "Those are the only three I can think of,
anyway."
> Technically, aversion therapy applies... IE: Negative stimuli to prevent a
> habit or action from an individual or group... And really, a lot of the
> ripoffs and bad attitudes I've gotten from furrydom and other genres at
> large, have been doing just that... Have you or anyone else noticed I
> haven't been drawing that much lately? Guess what, it isn't laziness...
The brown bunny nods.. "I can certainly understand that. Hopefully
positive stimuli also works. Most of us (at least I think most of us)
have never pirated your work, think highly of you as an artist, and
purchase from you when we can." He looks sad again. "However I know
other artists feel the same way, that Furry Fandom in general has been
impolite, harmfull, and basically tends to give them little wish to
create art."
"I wish it wasn't so, but many artists believe it to be true. All I
can do is say, "I like your work, I buy your work, I put your art on my
walls because I enjoy looking at it on a daily basis"." boojum smiles
gently. "The drawing you did of the female bunny peeking out from
between two gauzy curtains as she kneels on a bed resides on my Bedroom
Wall. The shading you did was so beautifull where you could see her
nude body through the blue curtains."
He chuckles, "I just wish I had the nerve to put up the other
origional I got from you, which is a female bunny with brown fur and a
white front, curled up and giving a view of things that I don't think I
should have up on my walls in case my parents or relatives come by. I
keep it in a special place where I can find it though."
boojum the brown bunny
Allen Kitchen
nsha...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<6mu9lg$147$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> With all due respect and apologies, I believe that when you purchase the
> artwork, you purchase the artwork. You may not purchase the right to
copy the
> artwork, nor the right to use that artwork in another product, but you
have
> purchased the artwork, and have the right to dispose of that artwork in
any
> fashion that you see fit.
Agreed. You bought a compilation: you sell the compilation. I
have no problem with that. And if you can sell the compilation
for 1000000$ more than you got for it, I'll tell you congratulations,
and let you buy the first round :)
But if you buy a compilation and break it up to resell, then you
are not selling what you bought any longer. At least, in my view
you aren't.
I don't agree/defend the artists on a lot of subjects. But I do
agree with them on this: while you have the right to sell what you
bought, you don't have the right to alter it first. And breaking up
the package is altering in my book.
> And if it became the general policy that
> original pieces of art could not be resold without artist permission, I
would
> cease purchasing artwork.
It may become neccessary to take a page from Microsoft's rulebook, and
put a licensing agreement on compilations in the future. Solely to prevent
people from scalping like this. And if buyers object, then they can buy
the artwork piece by piece without such licenses in place. Existing
copywrites will suffice.
Nobody minds fair use... heck, most artists know that the images will get
xeroxed once or twice. But I can see why they object to their carefully
crafted compilations being parceled out. Were I an artist, I'd quit making
compilations, and that is NOT a direction I want to see the fandom turn.
Allen Kitchen ( I may or may not be right... But I'm here! And
somebody has to do something! --Triva/starship Longshot)
Jeff Mancebo
Allen Kitchen wrote:
>
> Boojum, you keep saying this. Not to sound hostile or
> anything, but how do you know that's how the courts have
> ruled? I don't claim to be a legal beagle (although I did
> actually understand the lawspeak in the copyright office,
> god have mercy on me) but do you have any insider info
> on the matter? Some similar rulings perhaps? I'd like
> to see them.
boojum sighs.. "I'll go try and find some of the references.. It's
been a while since I delved into this. Would you prefer they be posted
here or sent in private E-mail?"
He cocks his head.. "Also, if you know of any cases to the contrary
please let me know.. because certainly precident carrys a great deal of
weight in our judicial system. I would appreciate reading them."
>
> It is my view, that 106A/a3A and B prevents the "scalping"
> of compilations, since:
>
> (a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. Subject to section 107
> and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106,
> the author of a work of visual art --
>
> (3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the
> right
> (A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other
> modification of
> that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and
>
> any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a
> violation
> of that right, and
> (B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any
> intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of
> that right.
>
> What constitutes prejudicing the artist? That's up to the artist to say.
> After all, if certain images are only available in the portfolios, then a
> scalper can cause both reputation and financial lose by his actions.
> If the artist objects, and the scalper continues, then the artist
> could (possibly) use this section to sue. Even if the scalper wins, that's
boojum shakes his head... "No.. Thats for the Courts to say.
Because the artist would be the plaintiff they must show, in a concrete
fashion, that their Reputation has suffered or that their Honor has
suffered. I don't think that is provable in this case."
He sighs, "In my understanding the person has not defaced any of the
art, he has not represented that he created the art. You may come up
with a case that the artists Honor has been injured by the breaking up
of the collection, however if the artist has sold the prints
individually then the defendent could point out that the selling of
individual prints does not inflict sufficient harm upon the artists
Honor that he should be penalized."
"It really is a case for a Copyright Lawyer. If someone can find
one who would answer a few questions on their chances of a successfull
lawsuit in the above situation it may clarify some things."
boojum the brown bunny
Glen Wooten
Allen Kitchen <all...@blkbox.com> wrote:
>
> Jeff Mancebo <je...@bigger.net> wrote in article
> <35929C79...@bigger.net>...
> > Selling a collection of purchased
> > art of individually is selling your personal property. There is a BIG
> > difference and the courts have always been fairly clear on this..."
>
> how do you know that's how the courts have ruled? I don't claim to be a
> legal beagle (although I did actually understand the lawspeak in the
> copyright office, god have mercy on me) but do you have any insider info
> on the matter? Some similar rulings perhaps? I'd like to see them.
See the previous posting I made about the ElfQuest buttons. In the
mid-80's, it was ruled that "remounting" an original for resale did not
constitute a copyright violation, as long as there was no copying done.
If you could "unmount" the item sold, and "recompile" it into the
original work, then there is no violation. It might look like sh*t,
pasted in with tape and all, but it would essentially be the same as it
was when originally sold.
> It is my view, that 106A/a3A and B prevents the "scalping"
> of compilations, since:
>
> (a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. Subject to section 107
> and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106,
> the author of a work of visual art --
>
> (3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the
> right
> (A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification
> of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation,
> and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work
> is a violation of that right, and
> (B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any
> intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of
> that right.
>
> What constitutes prejudicing the artist? That's up to the artist to say.
> After all, if certain images are only available in the portfolios, then a
> scalper can cause both reputation and financial lose by his actions.
No, because the artist has lost no money. That hard copy that the alleged
scalper is attempting to sell has already been purchased, the artist has
recieved his/her money for it. If the person considering purchasing the
hard copy hates all the other images in the collection, and only likes the
one being offered, they in all likelyhood would not have bought the
collection in the first place.
And the artist cannot say "If you want picture 9 in the collection, then
you are obligated to purchase the other 11, even though you hate them."
They can refuse to sell it any other way, but if someone has purchased the
collection in a legal manner, nothing prevents them from reselling it, in
part or in whole. Unless the artist managed to get (in writing) an
assurance that a purchaser will NEVER resell the collection without
breaking it up (which would only apply to the original purchaser...),
they cannot hold anyone to such a stipulation.
As for distortion, mutilation, or modification - that is very open to
interpretation. In this case let us say that you purchased a 20 volume
set of encyclopedias - and 1 year later, you wanted to sell them at a
flea market. Are you obligated to sell them ONLY as a set? No, you can
sell each volume to a wholey different individual - what is the problem
there? In the case of an encyclopedia, it's generally limited unless you
have the whole set, so you have the option of purchasing an entire set
from the company (Britannica, World Book, etc...) But if you're only
interested in the Solar System, nothing prevents you from picking up just
the "S" volume. The company won't sell you just an "S" volume - but that
doesn't mean you can't find it (and purchase it) SOMEWHERE...
--
Glen Wooten
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| primary: jag...@netcom.com | secondary: glen....@fanciful.org |
_____________________________________________________________________
| Terrie's web page: http://users.aol.com/amperprodx/littlepaw.html |
_____________________________________________________________________
Karl Meyer
Allen Kitchen <all...@blkbox.com> wrote:
: and sell the individual parts. Sure, you bought the book. You did NOT
: buy the rights to sell the book however, in whole or in part. Same rules
: apply.
Ecept that I can resell the whole book and not break any laws. Selling the
individual pages would likely be another story entirely. No different than
buying a comic book 10 years back and then reselling it today at a profit.
Happens all the time.
: As an example: I cannot buy Office97 and then sell Word and Excel
: seperately.
Exactly.
Jeff Mancebo
Allen Kitchen wrote:
> It may become neccessary to take a page from Microsoft's rulebook, and
> put a licensing agreement on compilations in the future. Solely to prevent
> people from scalping like this. And if buyers object, then they can buy
> the artwork piece by piece without such licenses in place. Existing
> copywrites will suffice.
boojum shakes his head.. "We DEFINITELY don't want to go there..
That would mean that should a person loose, have destroyed, crinkled or
whatever that they can LEGALLY copy someone elses. Because they have a
Liscense to have that artwork. Frankly I think you'd see more copies of
art showing up because they would make copies for their friends and
unless you can show THEY were the ones who made the copies you couldn't
do anything to them about it."
"Frankly I think the best bet is to let this persons potential
buyers know the artists wishes on the matter.. That the publishers and
artists do not like it and that you feel they should buy from the people
who create the art rather than this person who breaks it up to sell
piecemeal."
boojum the brown bunny
Karl Meyer
Brian O'connell <br...@nospam.vivid.net> wrote:
: Well, from what I've seen, it's a smattering of those who say there's
: nothing wrong with the jerk ripping off the artists, and secondly the
: copy their artwork...
I didn't see anyone say it was ok to copy and resell artwork (without
permission of the artist anyway). Reselling artwork in itself is fine and
not ripping off the artists in the least. Breaking up a portfolio and
selling it in pieces is likely illegal and not very nice to do even if it
is legal.
Allen Kitchen
Jeff Mancebo <je...@bigger.net> wrote in article
> Allen Kitchen wrote:
> >
> > Boojum, you keep saying this. Not to sound hostile or
> > anything, but how do you know that's how the courts have
> > ruled? I don't claim to be a legal beagle (although I did
> > actually understand the lawspeak in the copyright office,
> > god have mercy on me) but do you have any insider info
> > on the matter? Some similar rulings perhaps? I'd like
> > to see them.
>
> boojum sighs.. "I'll go try and find some of the references.. It's
> been a while since I delved into this. Would you prefer they be posted
> here or sent in private E-mail?"
here will be fine, good bunny. It will let others with
data jump in.
> He cocks his head.. "Also, if you know of any cases to the contrary
> please let me know.. because certainly precident carrys a great deal of
> weight in our judicial system. I would appreciate reading them."
Would that I could cite some. That's not my field I'm afraid,
or I'd have nipped the subject in the bud :)
> "It really is a case for a Copyright Lawyer. If someone can find
> one who would answer a few questions on their chances of a successfull
> lawsuit in the above situation it may clarify some things."
Oh boy! Sharks! Somebody has sent for the Sharks! :)
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
bdy...@network.boxmail.com
In article <3592999F...@bigger.net>,
Jeff Mancebo <je...@bigger.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> Can you legally break up a package of Office97 and sell the parts?
>> Same thing you know...
>
> "No its not." boojum answers. "Because you can not purchase
>Office97. You can only purchase a liscense to use it. Read all the
>fine print they provide with it (my work just went through all this)."
>
> "When you "purchase" office 97 you are given a liscense to have
>office 97 running on one machine, however you can install ANY office 97
>up to the revision date on the Liscense, from any source."
>
> "This is why you can get machines with Office97 (or Windows95 for
>that matter) installed without getting the physical software. What you
>own is the LIscense to operate it."
Software purchasing/licensing is a different area, and troubling in its
own right. There is legislation pending (can't remember exactly, but I
culd dig up the numbers if anyone's interested) which would essentially
make all software purchases "licenses". The contracts inside the box
("read this before you break this seal") are of questionable legality, and
do not apply insome states as they're changing the purchase contract after
the sale has been made, and without the customer ever seeing it.
On the original subject, it's not illegal, but it seems to be in an
ethical grey area, at least. If this guy actually has a booth of some
sort, that's going too far, and a non-access-preventing,
non-peace-disturbing picketing/protest of some sort would certainly seem
in order (the "non-"s so he can't make any claim of being harassed, and so
there's no reason for the concom to toss the protestors).
--
Brian Dysart | Ours is not to reason why...
bdy...@rahul.net | "...and eight for the fruit bat."
Ostrich
Jeff Mancebo (je...@bigger.net) wrote:
: boojum sighs.. "I'll go try and find some of the references.. It's
: been a while since I delved into this. Would you prefer they be posted
: here or sent in private E-mail?"
I'd very much like to see them posted - I'm finding it an interesting
discussion.
-Ostrich! <")
Ostrich
Allen Kitchen (all...@blkbox.com) wrote:
: If that were the case, then people who buy and scalp tickets to
: sporting events and concerts wouldn't be arrested, now would they?
: And the scalping laws would be thrown out, wouldn't they? But lots
: of people go to jail for such things. Routinely.
What these people are being arrested for isn't for selling the ticket
itself above face value, but rather for illegally reselling their
right to enter the stadium and occupy a seat. The physical ticket
becomes the property of the purchaser, and may be disposed of at any
price that the owner and a prospective buyer can agree upon. It's the
sale of the rights to watch the game that the scalping laws restrict.
I've a collection of old Indianapolis 500 tickets for which I paid
substantially more than face value. This is legal since the races for
which these tickets were issued are long over, and posession of the
ticket no longer gives me any rights to go to the Speedway and watch
a race.
-Ostrich! <")
nsha...@ix.netcom.com
Allen Kitchen wrote:
>
> But isn't
> buying a work of art just the same thing? You don't own the art, or
> the character, or the rights to either. You own what you purchased:
> a compilation of works.
I believe that I _DO_ own the art (not the right to reproduce it). If
it becomes the case that I do not have the right to resell a single
piece of art save under conditions set after the fact by the artist,
then I will begin considering erecting the barricades.
nsha...@ix.netcom.com
Jeff Mancebo wrote:
>
> "If you buy a book on Space Art, clip out one page and hang it on
> the wall you are mutilating the book.. but you are not breaking any
> laws. If you burn the book, rip the book into shreds, or sell the book
> to someone else you have STILL not broken any laws. If you PHOTOCOPY
> the book, then you have broken the law."
If you photocopy the book and sell the copy (while keeping the original)
or sell the original (while keeping the copy) yes, you've broken the
law. But if you make a copy, and sell both the original and the copy to
the same person (you've got to get rid of both at the same time, as I
understand it) then you haven't broken the law.
nsha...@ix.netcom.com
Allen Kitchen wrote:
>
> If I sell a story to a magazine, they don't have the right to resell it to
> another magazine for a profit. The rights to a story are not
> transferrable.
You generally sell something like FIRST NORTH AMERICAN SERIAL RIGHTS to
a magazine. If the work, however, is a "work for hire", they DO in
fact, have the right to resell the material for whatever they bloody
well can get.
> So if I sell to Amazing Stories, I don't need to worry about a chapter
> being printed in Penthouse instead.
However, if you sell to OMNI, it might very well end up in PENTHOUSE
instead (this based on statements from writers regarding the standard
contract provided by Omni for short story sales). (Both Omni and
Penthouse are published by the same company, remember.)
nsha...@ix.netcom.com
m...@netcom.com wrote:
>
> If he sets up a dealer's table AND he's got the broken portfolios, the
> artists should approach him and ask him (politely) to not sell the material.
> Should he get tacky, then a group of dealers and artists should approach the
> dealers' room head and the concom chair and explain their views (again, the
> more the better). If they don't listen, then the artist and friends can
> simply stand in front of the table, hold long conversations on Babylon 5
> versus Star Trek, read all the books on the table and discuss the merits of
> each (at length), flip through everything on the table -- and not buy -- and
> incidentally block access for other customers. They should spend hours
> considering what to buy -- and rotate shifts, of course. Don't block any
> other dealer, of course.
"AND INCIDENTALLY BLOCK ACCESS FOR OTHER CUSTOMERS" [emphasis added].
Err...Mel, I really hate to disagree with you on this, but I believe
this begins to fall into the "your right to move your fist ends where my
nose begins". There is another description for this sort of activity:
it is called, "blockade". Between nations, it is considered an act of
war. Between individuals it is bloody rude -- far more rude, I think,
than the act that would provoke you to it (and yes, I do regard this
individual's breaking up of the portfolios to be rude -- although I'd
wager, still legal).
> - If polite requests don't work, try a polite boycott.
Please, a blockade is what you've described, I believe, rather than a
boycott. A boycott would be "I, as an artist, refuse to sell ANYTHING
to this person". Preventing other people from buying from him is, in
effect, establish a blockade. And a blockade (as described) is anything
but polite. A boycott ("No, Mr. So-and-So, I'm afraid that I do not
approve of your practice of breaking up portfolios -- so I will not sell
any of my portfolios to you", or "No, Mr. So-and-So, I do not approve of
your practice of breaking up portfolios -- so I will not buy from you")
is quite a different kettle of fish.
-- N. C. Shapero, who is afraid that more gunpowder is going to be
burned in the discussions than between the people discussing the subject
and the miscreant responsible for all of this nonesense... --
Jeff Mancebo
Farlo wrote:
> Karl Meyer did speaketh thus:
> >Reselling artwork in itself is fine and
> >not ripping off the artists in the least.
>
> The artist is missing a potential sale, and that's the harm done.
>
boojum shakes his head. "This is commerce, not theft. He did not steal
from the artist.. Mind you, he didn't HELP the artist either. That is
generally the meaning of RippOff, Theft."
boojum the
brown bunny
Doodles
On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 14:22:28 GMT, ost...@fysh.org (Ostrich) wrote:
>: All I know is, if I see him doing it, I have a very potent weapon to
>: use against him. =};-3
>
>: Unca Spooge, who learned a lesson at CF9 that he's _never_ going to
>: forget..
>
>Well? It's mean to leave a narrative hook dangling...
Neither he nor anyone else who wants to pull the same stunt gets any
warning. Just the knowledge I can use a legal weapon against same.
Unca Spooge, mean as a snake.
Jeff Mancebo
Glen Wooten wrote:
> Best thing to do in this situation is to try to have the art shows you go
> to have some sort of "no reselling without permission" clause in the
> rules. Then they CANNOT without prior permission...
boojum nods.. "For Art Shows this is fine, unfortunately this won't work in
the Dealers room. To many people who sell used books or other legally purchased
items which they don't have written proof for the con that they have the original
producers permission to sell. I like the idea of a Boycott or educating the
fans."
boojum the brown
bunny
Jeff Mancebo
> Please, a blockade is what you've described, I believe, rather than a
> boycott. A boycott would be "I, as an artist, refuse to sell ANYTHING
> to this person". Preventing other people from buying from him is, in
> effect, establish a blockade. And a blockade (as described) is anything
> but polite. A boycott ("No, Mr. So-and-So, I'm afraid that I do not
> approve of your practice of breaking up portfolios -- so I will not sell
> any of my portfolios to you", or "No, Mr. So-and-So, I do not approve of
> your practice of breaking up portfolios -- so I will not buy from you")
> is quite a different kettle of fish.
boojum smiles and rubs his hands together. "I MUCH prefer Picketting to
blockading anyway. I believe that blocking customers from a place of business is
against the law anyway. But you could have nifty placards."
He bounces gently. "Heck, talk to the people at tables to either side of his,
ask if they will allow signs that warn about what the person is doing. They will
likely be sympathetic to you. In my opinion, information is a MUCH better weapon
than intimidation."
boojum the brown bunny
Jeff Mancebo
nsha...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> If you photocopy the book and sell the copy (while keeping the original)
> or sell the original (while keeping the copy) yes, you've broken the
> law. But if you make a copy, and sell both the original and the copy to
> the same person (you've got to get rid of both at the same time, as I
> understand it) then you haven't broken the law.
boojum blushes.. "Your right, I forgot to include that bit. Sorry about
that. I'm even the one who has been thinking of taking photographs of the
original art work I've bought over the years and keeping it in a Safety
Deposit box for Insurance purposes should something happen to my home."
boojum the brown bunny
flashcat
And the really annoying part is that this attempt to define good and
proper use in the face of disregard and poor conduct -- is only the tip
of a hypothetical iceberg. There are a number of other rubs involved in
the use (intended or otherwise) of artwork.
One other problem which I've encountered with various artist friends
who've sold work is that the purchaser often assumes that, in buying an
original piece of art, they also acquire full rights to reproduce it or
submit it for publication. This is frequently not the intent of the
creator, but not all artists think to bring this up at the time of the
contracting of the work, or when they're turning it over to the buyer.
These aspects, and others, are enough to give you a hairball...
As for education, it's a good idea, though it will have to be
STRICTLY aimed at the fans, as those having their merry way with
artists' work for fun 'n profit could care less about courtesy. It's
hoped that the buying fans will care enough about supporting the
creators who fuel the fan movement, to follow these guidelines.
Unfortunately, there're just as many fans who'll blithely turn a
blind eye as there are hacks intent on making a buck, whatever it takes.
Darkwulf
Farlo wrote:
[clip of lead-in material]
> Erm, no.
> The example is valid on any scale and regardless of whether or not the
> guy makes a profit. He can even give the portfolio away for free!
>
> He (in theory) costs me $10 for each portfolio that I *might* have
> sold. If he does this only once, I've lost $20-$30 on potential
> sales. That's harmful. Ouch. I can't prove that I would have sold
> those copies, but *he* bought one, now didn't he?
>
> If he gives away his copy to his close buddy, that means his buddy NO
> LONGER needs a copy! Get it? Lost sales. If he thought my stuff was
> so cool, he'd have bought a copy for himself *and* his friend. I get
> the impression that most people don't know what it costs UP FRONT to
> make a portfolio. Ten dollars is a BARGAIN!
You sound like the local law-enforcement. They determine their budget
by how much money they expect to make in fines... Counting lost
potential sales the same as lost profit is slightly askew, at least in
my book.
Some of these things have been said, albeit in various forms, but (given
the length of the thread..) bear repeating. According to what's been
said, he's selling originals, not copies. So, one copy of the work was
purchased from the artist, one copy is put into circulation, and only
that copy is in play.
I guess I can mentally compare this to a software license. The buyer
hasn't bought the artwork, but the representation of that artwork. The
art isn't his, but this physical object is his to do with as he pleases,
barring doing anything to pass that object as his own work. If he sells
that object or any piece of it, for any price, be it 100 dollars, or a
stick of gum, that physical object passes from his hands to the new
"licenser's", he retains no copy and no right to that representation,
but the original artist still owns the work itself. The artist still
has the amount of money they wished for that copy, that copy is still in
existance and no other, and nothing's been violated.
The issue of profit by the reseller comes into play here, and I guess I
chalk it up to supply and demand. If someone's willing to pay a
thousand dollars for a wooden chest, handmade in the thirteenth century,
because it isn't available elsewhere, then that is their right.
Likewise, if I have a bundle of ten prints I bought for X dollars, and a
friend says, "Hey, I like #6 there. I'll give you Y dollars for it,
because I can't get it elsewhere", that's his right. Or if it COULD be
gotten elsewhere, but its sale price plus shipping/travel costs/whatever
is greater than Y. It's all supply and demand. They want that item and
are willing to pay for it, the artist still has what they originally
wanted, the original copy is still the only one in existance, and that's
that.
Maybe I'm a bit of a jerk myself, maybe I'm naive, but I like to think I
can resell my possessions if I no longer have a use for them. This is
my car, if I want a new one, I can at least get a few bucks from it.
That's my sound card; I can sell it when I get a new one, both to offset
the cost, and who needs two sound cards for one computer? This is my
copy of MS-DOS, and I just bought Windows 95; why don't I sell it to
someone else; in giving up the disks and documentation, and retaining no
copies for myself, the original license is changing hands entirely: I
retain no benefits of the license, while the buyer gets all remaning
benefits. This is the piece of artwork that I purchased; I no longer
want this art, so why not pass it to someone that does, and maybe recoup
the money I paid for it? I no longer retain the benefits of owning the
piece, while the buyer recieves all the benefits.
Maybe I'm rambling. But this makes perfect sense to me. And if anyone
can at least see where I'm coming from, I'll be happy.
Ja'Cek Darkwulf, the lurking one (breaking his silence for the first
time in...who knows how long?)
Wanderer
Jeff Mancebo wrote in message <3592999F...@bigger.net>...
(snip)
>
> He smiles, "And if you break up the set you ARE selling what you
>purchased. You still may not make a copy of it and it still falls under
>the origional copyright. If it is no longer what you purchased then it
>is a Derivative work and YOU own the copyright. Thats how the courts
>view it."
>
(snip)
Wanderer raises his gray-furred paw to make a point. "Boojum", he says
patiently, "we actually have no proof that this person is actually selling
art that he's clipped from his own private collection of portfolios and
fanzines. That's just what he said when confronted about selling what were,
as far as the artist knew, pirated copies of the original art."
"Now", says the wolfurry calmly, "if he is, indeed, just selling clippings
and pieces of portfolios, then yes, he can do so. After all, he has to buy
more to sell more. Simple. If", he declaims, raising a furry finger
(pointer finger), "on the other paw, he is photocopying the items and
selling the photocopies, then he is violating the portion of copyright which
states 'not to be reproduced, in whole or in part, by mechanical or
electronic means'."
"So", says the sun-toasted wolf, "it all depends on what he's actually
doing."
Wanderer settles back in his seat to await the brown bunny's response.
Yours truly,
The sunburned,
Wanderer**wand...@applink.net
Where am I going?I don't quite know.
What does it matter where people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow.
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I*don't know!
Farlo
Tim Gadd did speaketh thus:
>stan...@abac.com (Farlo) wrote:
>
>>I do not have a portfolio, but:
>
>>It's simple - if I sold portfolios of 10 images at $10, singles at
>>$1.50, most people are going to buy the portfolio. Along comes this
>>guy, and sells singles out of my portfolio for $1 (at no profit - what
>>a guy!). Each of his customers no longer needs to buy that particular
>>image from that portfolio. If people really only want 2-3 images out
>>of a 10-image book, I stand to lose 2-3 potential portfolio customers
>>for the cost of *one* customer. After all, why pay $10 when you can
>>select the images that you really want and pay $3 for 3? Sure, he
>>bought *one* book - but he directly cost me 2-3 portfolio sales and/or
>>5 or more single image sales.
>
>This scenario only seems likely to be harmful to you if he buys up
>large quantities of your portfolios, and sells the individual prints
>at no profit.
Erm, no.
The example is valid on any scale and regardless of whether or not the
guy makes a profit. He can even give the portfolio away for free!
He (in theory) costs me $10 for each portfolio that I *might* have
sold. If he does this only once, I've lost $20-$30 on potential
sales. That's harmful. Ouch. I can't prove that I would have sold
those copies, but *he* bought one, now didn't he?
If he gives away his copy to his close buddy, that means his buddy NO
LONGER needs a copy! Get it? Lost sales. If he thought my stuff was
so cool, he'd have bought a copy for himself *and* his friend. I get
the impression that most people don't know what it costs UP FRONT to
make a portfolio. Ten dollars is a BARGAIN!
(Gee, I read like a carnival barker ... LOL)
Furthermore, if he sells the portfolio pages at $1.25, he *is* making
a profit while undercutting my price by 25 cents. Why buy a single
page from good ol' Farlo when you can buy it off this guy cheaper?
He need only do this *once* and I lose, um - $10/.25 = $2.25
That's enough for me to have bought the "Whopper Jr." value meal.
He may not mean any harm, but if he does this *just once*, I will lose
$2.25 to $30 dollars. (Does everybody follow this example?)
(Sidenote here: I do *not* count every copper, I make every copper
count!)
IMPORTANT NOTE:
My example is only to illustrate (heh) a point - I don't know Brian or
the parties involved in his issue!!!
(*Waves to Brian* - I'll stick up for you!)
>I suppose he might do such a thing, but it seems sort of
>odd to me, because once he has one copy each of the prints he wants
>for himself, what is his motivation to keep buying mutliple copies of
>your portfolios?
He may resell at a profit, but that isn't the issue, really. =:)
-------------------
Farlo m>*_*<m
Urban Fey Dragon
Standard XXXX
@abac.com XXXX
-------------------
These people don't approve of spam (AFAIK) and
e-mail sent to them will get you in trouble:
postmaster@[127.0.0.1]
abuse@[127.0.0.1]
MAILER-DAEMON@[127.0.0.1]
.@[127.0.0.1]
..@[127.0.0.1]
root@[127.0.0.1]
Farlo
Jeff Mancebo did speaketh thus:
>Farlo wrote:
<Farlo's example snipped - by Farlo>
> boojum smiles.. "But he allready said the guy was selling the
>individual pieces for MORE than the cost of the collections. This means
>either the collection is being sold for to little, or the individual
>plates are being sold for to much."
Correct - the guy is just catering to the market, at my expense (in
theory).
>
> "The point is that what the person is doing is both Legally and
>Ethically sound. He is using his money to purchase bulk (the
>collection) which he then sells individually.
Legally, he is on solid ground.
I have explained elsewhere (today) about the financial aspects of his
tactics, and IMO his ethical stance is shaky because of it.
He is within his rights as a purchaser.
>
> He shakes his head, "Whatever it is, it's NOT Pirate Art, so we
>might want to change the name of the thread."
Quite correct, oh patient bunny ...
Farlo
Karl Meyer did speaketh thus:
>Reselling artwork in itself is fine and
>not ripping off the artists in the least.
The artist is missing a potential sale, and that's the harm done.
If I buy a "Farlo" portfolio for $10, sell it to Joe for $10, and he
sells it again to Sue for $10, how many copies did Farlo sell? He sold
only one. He could have sold three.
This is *very legal*, but it doesn't help the Artist!
>Breaking up a portfolio and
>selling it in pieces is likely illegal and not very nice to do even if it
>is legal.
>
It is totally legal, but it makes it *harder* to sell portfolios!!
I support our artists, and buying an image or a portfolio from the
*artist* is just one way of doing so.
Glen Wooten
m...@netcom.com wrote:
> In article <199806251030...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> redwo...@aol.com (RedWolf885) wrote:
> > Thanks in advance for your help and if you come up with an idea on this,
> > please feel free to share it with everyone.
>
> His attitude certainly is dreadful, isn't it?
>
> A suggestion, here: Educate the public. Call for a boycott. If he
> tries to hang art in the art show (this sort of resell is usually
> frowned on by art shows at sf cons UNLESS the person can prove beyond
> the shadow of a doubt that he's selling his only copy), have as many
> people as possible approach the director and ask for the art to be taken
> down. 2 people yelling won't do it, but 50 people showing up to the con
> director and the art show director (including the artist) asking for it
> to go can produce an impact -- particularly if the artists start asking
> for their own pieces to be removed from the show and the hanging fees
> returned.
Best thing to do in this situation is to try to have the art shows you go
to have some sort of "no reselling without permission" clause in the
rules. Then they CANNOT without prior permission...
> If he sets up a dealer's table AND he's got the broken portfolios, the
> artists should approach him and ask him (politely) to not sell the
> material. Should he get tacky, then a group of dealers and artists
> should approach the dealers' room head and the concom chair and explain
> their views (again, the more the better). If they don't listen, then the
> artist and friends can simply stand in front of the table, hold long
> conversations on Babylon 5 versus Star Trek, read all the books on the
> table and discuss the merits of each (at length), flip through
> everything on the table -- and not buy -- and incidentally block access
> for other customers. They should spend hours considering what to buy --
> and rotate shifts, of course. Don't block any other dealer, of course.
Or use the laser eyes, as I suggested before...
> - In no case should any threats be made against anyone's person.
Because this will get YOU in trouble...
> - Make a first effort to have the material removed by a one-on-one request.
Always try the polite approach - it makes you look better if you have to
resort to stronger measures later...
> - If polite requests don't work, try a polite boycott.
Like I said in my post - no one can get you for stating that the person
selling the broken art is doing so against the artist's wishes. The fact
that you might be telling anyone who happens past is not wrong.
> - Remember, any angry or nasty response will make you look bad. He can
> get as angry as he likes (he'll look bad).
Exactly - "He who blows his stack first has lost..."
> - ARTISTS, NUMBER YOUR PORTFOLIOS AND THE INDIVIDUAL WORKS IN THE
> PORTFOLIOS (so anyone selling more than one (print #10 of 20) will be
> noticed). (start now).
If it appears that it is one small part of a larger set, that might make
them think twice about breaking it up.
And use a non-photo blue pen when doing it - it will be obviously
noticable, and if it's in ink, you can't erase it.
Terry Knight
Farlo wrote:
> Karl Meyer did speaketh thus:
> >Reselling artwork in itself is fine and
> >not ripping off the artists in the least.
>
> The artist is missing a potential sale, and that's the harm done.
>
> If I buy a "Farlo" portfolio for $10, sell it to Joe for $10, and he
> sells it again to Sue for $10, how many copies did Farlo sell? He sold
> only one. He could have sold three.
But from the other side, you've recouped the $10 from Joe for what you
spent on he print, Joe's recouped $10 from Sue from what he bought it
off you... and Sue has the portfolio. Total copies in circulation = 1.
Total amount spent = $10. Total received by artist for the portfolio =
$10.
We're talking the path of a *single* legit portfolio being passed around
from one person to another. No copying, no reproduction. What's wrong
with that?
> This is *very legal*, but it doesn't help the Artist!
So... by extension, buying a second-hand Holden Camira off the used car
lot is hurting General Motors? Buying a second hand copy of "2001: A
Space Odyssy" is hurting Arthur C. Clarke? Buying a second-hand copy of
Windows 95 hurts Bill Gates?
Buying an animation cell from Disney, then selling it afterwards at an
increased price is ripping off Disney?
People buy "second hand" items as opposed to "new" items for many
reasons. Availability is one. Price and perceived value is another. (And
the fact that the seller has the item priced in my local currency
instead of US$...)
> >Breaking up a portfolio and
> >selling it in pieces is likely illegal and not very nice to do even if it
> >is legal.
> It is totally legal, but it makes it *harder* to sell portfolios!!
> I support our artists, and buying an image or a portfolio from the
> *artist* is just one way of doing so.
Sure... That's your choice. But if the artist only sells portfolios, and
the punter only wants one or two prints from the portfolio (or can't
*afford* the entire portfolio), and someone is willing to sell them to
you out of their collection - as long as the punter knows that this is
*part* of a set and the seller is selling legitimatly purchased artwork
(not pirate copies) I don't see the problem. The artist already has the
cash from the original sale of the portfolio.
After all, profit's the American Way, innit? :) Supply and demand?
I think Glen's idea of numbering the prints of a portfolio as being "x
of y prints in series nnn" is good. Not so much as a preventative for
the breaking up of portfolios, but additional information to the buyer
as to exactly what they're getting. I definitly think though that
artists retrospectivly placing distribution and sale conditions upon
physical artwork items that are *already sold*(as opposed to
copyright/reproduction) is a Bad Idea.
And... on the one paw I can see why the artists may be getting upset as
to unanticipated reselling and potential loss of earnings from artwork
proceeds for their labours, but on the other paw some comments in this
thread do tend to assert the position that the fans/purchasers are cash
cows to be milked by artists selling portfolios...
Tailwavies!
--
Terry Knight | MayFurr@FurryMUCK | may...@ibm.net | Somewhere near NZ
=========================================================================
Homepage: http://www.furnation.com/mayfurr/ FurCode1.2: FCF3adm/C3famd
A++>+++ C+ D H M+ P R T W Z++ S# RLCT cdon++$ a+ d e+ f h+++ i+wf p+ sm*
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Glen Wooten
And, if the arguement is taken to it's logical conclusion, we must shut
down Christie's, most any auction (dealing in "estate jewelery" or the
like) you've ever been to, ANY used book store...
Ostrich
nsha...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: -- N. C. Shapero, who is afraid that more gunpowder is going to be
: burned in the discussions than between the people discussing the subject
: and the miscreant responsible for all of this nonesense... -
Think of it as a sort of furry bonding activity...
-Ostrich! <")
Glen Wooten
Jeff Mancebo <je...@bigger.net> wrote:
>
> Glen Wooten wrote:
>
> > Best thing to do in this situation is to try to have the art shows you go
> > to have some sort of "no reselling without permission" clause in the
> > rules. Then they CANNOT without prior permission...
>
> work in the Dealers room. To many people who sell used books or other
> legally purchased items which they don't have written proof for the con
> that they have the original producers permission to sell. I like the
> idea of a Boycott or educating the fans."
No, this would be limited to something like an art show. It has been
stated that people will not be allowed to sell (or re-sell) material
containing work made by others unless they have permission from the
originaitor (a method to prevent the breaking up of portfolios...)
But other than being on an iffy legal ground, it would exclude people like
Ed Zolna from selling anything, unless he had written permission from
EVERYONE who's material (either written or drawn) he might have in his
stock. The mechanics of assuring total compliance would make it difficult
for ANYONE to sell anything that was not produced by their own hand. I
mean, it's easy to spot someone selling bootleg T-shirts or the like, but
if someone has as varied a selection as someone like Ed Zolna does (not
that I worry about Ed - a more trust-worthy man you'd be hard-pressed to
find...), it would ALL have to be verified IF you want to apply this same
rule to one lone person selling legal material (even if it doesn't make
the artist happy...)
For something like this, education is the key, and public awareness is
the only weapon you can use...
Farlo
Terry Knight did speaketh thus:
>Farlo wrote:
>> If I buy a "Farlo" portfolio for $10, sell it to Joe for $10, and he
>> sells it again to Sue for $10, how many copies did Farlo sell? He sold
>> only one. He could have sold three.
>
>But from the other side, you've recouped the $10 from Joe for what you
>spent on he print, Joe's recouped $10 from Sue from what he bought it
>off you... and Sue has the portfolio. Total copies in circulation = 1.
>Total amount spent = $10. Total received by artist for the portfolio =
>$10.
CORRECT!!! =:P
>
>We're talking the path of a *single* legit portfolio being passed around
>from one person to another. No copying, no reproduction. What's wrong
>with that?
I'm just not getting through. Eh, tomorrow's another day.
>
>> This is *very legal*, but it doesn't help the Artist!
>
>So... by extension, buying a second-hand Holden Camira off the used car
>lot is hurting General Motors?
Off the GM Dealer's lot? Doesn't apply, and here's why:
GM will buy back yer car and sell at a profit, remember that.
They are in business to make money.
Buying a used GM car from some guy on the street is a lost sale - you
coulda been a GM customer!
>Buying a second hand copy of "2001: A
>Space Odyssy" is hurting Arthur C. Clarke?
Yes - it is a *lost sale*.
>Buying a second-hand copy of
>Windows 95 hurts Bill Gates?
Yes - it is a *lost sale*.
(Would you like to buy my copy? <Grin>)
>
>Buying an animation cell from Disney, then selling it afterwards at an
>increased price is ripping off Disney?
AFAIK, This is a singular item. IMO, Terry is mixing topics here
(apples/oranges). Cells are unique, therefore, Disney cannot expect
to make multiple sales of the same cell. You can, however, expect to
sell multiple copies of a portfolio.
>
>People buy "second hand" items as opposed to "new" items for many
>reasons. Availability is one. Price and perceived value is another. (And
>the fact that the seller has the item priced in my local currency
>instead of US$...)
Yes, that's true.
Perhaps I can bring the topic back into focus:
Buying a portfolio second-hand when it is readily available otherwise
means that the artist does not see all the potential profit that (s)he
might from producing the portfolio in the first place. The artist
has, therefore, less incentive to make art for the public (i.e. you
and I).
When I buy art, my purchase says, "Your art is special. I wish to
encourage you with a tangible reward.". When I have no money I offer
compliments, instead (everyone likes compliments, especially when they
are well-deserved).
>
>> I support our artists, and buying an image or a portfolio from the
>> *artist* is just one way of doing so.
>
>Sure... That's your choice. But if the artist only sells portfolios, and
>the punter only wants one or two prints from the portfolio (or can't
>*afford* the entire portfolio), and someone is willing to sell them to
>you out of their collection - as long as the punter knows that this is
>*part* of a set and the seller is selling legitimatly purchased artwork
>(not pirate copies) I don't see the problem. The artist already has the
>cash from the original sale of the portfolio.
The artist misses the potential sale of the single images, which are
usually also for sale.
>
>After all, profit's the American Way, innit? :) Supply and demand?
I wonder how long it'll take me to learn Japanese?
"Everyone treats me like a Cyclone ranger ...
like a total stranger..."
> I definitly think though that
>artists retrospectivly placing distribution and sale conditions upon
>physical artwork items that are *already sold*(as opposed to
>copyright/reproduction) is a Bad Idea.
You can't place restrictions on an item sold, that's silly.
>
>And... on the one paw I can see why the artists may be getting upset as
>to unanticipated reselling and potential loss of earnings from artwork
>proceeds for their labours,
It's a miracle! Lord, he can SEEE!!!! Y>O_O<Y Hallelujah!
>but on the other paw some comments in this
>thread do tend to assert the position that the fans/purchasers are cash
>cows to be milked by artists selling portfolios...
... and then he stumbled, fell into the depths of befuddlement, and
was lost!!!
"Cows to be milked"? Pardon??
There isn't any artist who can afford this attitude, IMO.
Word gets around, you know. That's not to say that there aren't good
artists with this problem, just that I hope it's never *me*!
I want people to say, "That Farlo, a great artist and a great guy".
(Well, I can dream ... m>^_^<m)
>
>Tailwavies!
Tailwavies and a pat on the head, my confuzzled one.
> Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
.... Hilarious. "Blessed are the meek, for they are fun to chase"
Farlo
Glen Wooten did speaketh thus:
>And, if the arguement is taken to it's logical conclusion, we must shut
>down Christie's, most any auction (dealing in "estate jewelery" or the
>like) you've ever been to, ANY used book store...
*Sigh* Of course you know this means WAR!!!! (Bwuh Hah ha!)
... How about we take *Glen's* argument to a logical extreme, too?
Huh? Huh? Howsabout it? =;)
Anyfur wanna buy some underwear, cheap?
(Practically new! No "burn" marks! Reliable and "April Fresh"...)
I got a toothbrush - good enough for my very own mouth!
Twenny five cents and it's yours! (send me a SASE and $3 for S&H).
Farlo
Jeff Mancebo did speaketh thus:
>Farlo wrote:
>
>> Karl Meyer did speaketh thus:
>> >Reselling artwork in itself is fine and
>> >not ripping off the artists in the least.
>>
>> The artist is missing a potential sale, and that's the harm done.
>>
>
> boojum shakes his head. "This is commerce, not theft. He did not steal
>from the artist.. Mind you, he didn't HELP the artist either. That is
>generally the meaning of RippOff, Theft."
I never said "Theft" or "Ripoff" - those are Karl's words, bunny! =:)
(Erf. Late. Time to go buy cheesy poofs.)
Farlo
Darkwulf did speaketh thus:
>You sound like the local law-enforcement.
Really? Thanks! =:)
>They determine their budget
>by how much money they expect to make in fines... Counting lost
>potential sales the same as lost profit is slightly askew, at least in
>my book.
I understand this puzzlement.
>According to what's been
>said, he's selling originals, not copies. So, one copy of the work was
>purchased from the artist, one copy is put into circulation, and only
>that copy is in play.
Correct.
>
>Maybe I'm a bit of a jerk myself,
Do I have your permission to slap you to sleep?
(That's a joke, folks - you can laugh now. aHa, i'm so funny....)
>maybe I'm naive, but I like to think I
>can resell my possessions if I no longer have a use for them.
Gack! Why don't you just stab me again!!!
*Sob!* "No longer have a use" for one of my masterpieces?
Would you sell my children? Have you no SOUL?
<Grin>
>This is
>my car,
... this is my car on drugs. =;)
... This is Officer Bob, who is not amused by my car on drugs..
Officer Bob says that I'm going to visit all my new friends downtown.
Sounds like fun! Will they have drugs? Officer Bob says, "No".
I wonder why Officer Bob ... *Gack!*
>
>Maybe I'm rambling.
*noddles*
>But this makes perfect sense to me. And if anyone
>can at least see where I'm coming from, I'll be happy.
I haveta go buy cheesy poofs now. Buh bye!
Karl Meyer
Glen Wooten <jag...@netcom.com> wrote:
: No, this would be limited to something like an art show. It has been
: containing work made by others unless they have permission from the
: originaitor (a method to prevent the breaking up of portfolios...)
So no animation cells in the art show at AAC. I know that was the one
exception to the no reselling rule that CF has had in the past since in
most cases animation cells aren't signed by individual artists. I'm glad
that exception was made since I've gotten some nice cells from CF in the
past. I know dealers that sell them as well so hopefully that won't be a
problem.
RedWolf885
The following was forwarded to me by Mr. Foltz.
>From: Sara Palmer <car...@redpanda.com>
>Subject: Re: Problem
>
>Sean..
>
>This is from the Orginazational director for AAC.
>
>We ran your letter by our lawyers for a professional opinion. As it
>currently stands, the request in the letter stands to not only get you
>('you,' being the artists behind the request) sued, but also us if we
help
>you out in this circumstance.
>
>There is a fine line here, Most artwork that is copyrighted says "NOT
FOR
>REPRODUCTION" Very very few pieces are ever set "NOT FOR REPRODUCTION
OR
>RESALE ON WHOLE OR IN PART"
>
>Normally the legal wording is as such: No part of this publication may
be
>reproduced, trasmitted, transcribed, stored in a retrieval system or
sold
>in part or whole in or as another document, or translated into any
language
>or computer language, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical,
>magnetic, chemical, optical, manual or otherwise without the expressed
>written permission of the author or artist (fill in the name here)
>
>This is usually needed to be placed on or before the second page of the
>portfolio, magazine or other bound item, and in the case where seperate
>(non bound) artistic works are sold, should also be placed on the back
of
>every peice.
>
>Without that, the person in question has every legal right to do what
he's
>doing.. and we can be sued on four or five different counts if we try
and
>obstruct that.
>
>However.. I will note that we do not have his name scheduled for a
table at
>AAC this year
>
>I thought you might want to know.. as this guy sounds like someone who
>knows the rules, and would delight in dragging you all off to court.
>
>Caribou coos, "Now, if he is selling copies of the artwork, is that a
>problem without that information?"
>
>If you can prove that the material he is selling was copied off of work
>that _did_ have that information on it, then he is fully liable."
>
>
>So.. there ya go:/ Spread the word around. The director is not happy
about
>the way it is, but at least the legal truth is known.
>
>Sara
Ross Smith
m...@netcom.com wrote:
>
> Goodness, what a mess. For the record, both pro artists and writers in outher
> areas have problems with this sort of situation. ASFA (the Association of
> Science Fiction Artists) has been grappling with this for awhile.
>
> His attitude certainly is dreadful, isn't it?
Why? What's the matter with it?
The artwork is *his property*. He's paid for it fair and square. As long
as he doesn't violate copyright by copying the art, he has a perfect
right to do whatever he likes with it. If you're pissed that he's
getting more money for it than you did (which seems to be the main
complaint here), tough shit -- that's your problem.
(And since he hasn't actually copied anything, calling him a pirate in
public certainly sounds like slander to me.)
Jeez, stop being such a bunch of anal-retentive control freaks. What's
next? Burn down all the used book shops?
--
Ross Smith ..................................... Wellington, New Zealand
<mailto:r-s...@ihug.co.nz> ........ <http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~r-smith/>
"Remember when we told you there was no future? Well, this is it."
-- Blank Reg
Darkwulf
Farlo wrote:
>
> Darkwulf did speaketh thus:
> >
> >Maybe I'm a bit of a jerk myself,
>
> Do I have your permission to slap you to sleep?
> (That's a joke, folks - you can laugh now. aHa, i'm so funny....)
>
> >maybe I'm naive, but I like to think I
> >can resell my possessions if I no longer have a use for them.
>
> Gack! Why don't you just stab me again!!!
>
> *Sob!* "No longer have a use" for one of my masterpieces?
> Would you sell my children? Have you no SOUL?
>
> <Grin>
Ack! There's another one that slipped by the ol' double-meaning
filters. ;)
Ja'Cek Darkwulf, the sheepish wolf..
Glen Wooten
I'm just saying that this sort of thing might be possible to control in
an art show (where they are the agent, so what goes through must pass
muster with them...) As you have pointed out, a blanket application
would not work all that well to the art show AS WELL AS the dealer's room.
This is a grey area, and so there is NO one method to use to control the
reselling of artwork...
Glen Wooten
Ross Smith <r-s...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> m...@netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > Goodness, what a mess. For the record, both pro artists and writers in outher
> > areas have problems with this sort of situation. ASFA (the Association of
> > Science Fiction Artists) has been grappling with this for awhile.
> >
> > His attitude certainly is dreadful, isn't it?
>
> Why? What's the matter with it?
I don't know if I'd call it dreadful, but if he acknowledges (as he has)
that he's doing something the artist doesn't approve of, but hey - why
should I care - then he's not thinking very much about the artist. On a
purely legal basis - no, he's not done anything wrong...
> The artwork is *his property*. He's paid for it fair and square. As long
> as he doesn't violate copyright by copying the art, he has a perfect
> right to do whatever he likes with it. If you're pissed that he's
> getting more money for it than you did (which seems to be the main
> complaint here), tough shit -- that's your problem.
A wee bit harsh here, aren't we? The concern isn't just about money
(which, yes, is a major concern...), it's also about the artwork. The
art was sold in a portfolio, and that's the way the artist wanted them
sold. I don't know whether or not the individual images were even
available as seperate images, but that's not the question here. The
question is: Is a collection of artwork (as in a portfolio) one whole
entity, or is it the sum of it's parts? The artist believes it is one
entity, the person selling the individual pieces believes it to be the
simply the sum of it's parts, and as an old commercial said: parts is parts.
If someone created something like this, I'm sure that they would be less
than pleased to have it chopped to pieces and sold off - but there is no
law against it.
> (And since he hasn't actually copied anything, calling him a pirate in
> public certainly sounds like slander to me.)
It would be, yes. I would advice anyone to NOT make any statements like
that. Like I said before, you can state publically that he is selling
the art in a manner not sanctioned by the artist, and it displeases the
artist. You can't get stronger than that. If the potential buyer does
not like that concept, they won't buy the art. If they don't care, then
don't try to stop them - it would be a potential violation.
> Jeez, stop being such a bunch of anal-retentive control freaks. What's
> next? Burn down all the used book shops?
Although there is little to do legally to stop it, the artists doesn't
have to like it. And, in the world of art, there is an ethical question
(as Mel stated before...) No real answer as yet. But don't jump on
people because they are concerned about it...
Glen Wooten
RedWolf885 <redwo...@aol.com> wrote:
> The following was forwarded to me by Mr. Foltz.
>
> >From: Sara Palmer <car...@redpanda.com>
> >Subject: Re: Problem
> >
> >Sean..
> >
> >This is from the Orginazational director for AAC.
> >
> >We ran your letter by our lawyers for a professional opinion. As it
> >currently stands, the request in the letter stands to not only get you
> >('you,' being the artists behind the request) sued, but also us if we
> >help you out in this circumstance.
Sadly, true - unless there is a clear-cut violation of the law in effect,
anyone who assists in the prevention of this person doing business is an
accessory. In this case, I guess it would be to slander - but you could
be charged.
> >There is a fine line here, Most artwork that is copyrighted says "NOT FOR
> >REPRODUCTION" Very very few pieces are ever set "NOT FOR REPRODUCTION OR
> >RESALE ON WHOLE OR IN PART"
> >
> >Normally the legal wording is as such: No part of this publication may be
> >reproduced, trasmitted, transcribed, stored in a retrieval system or sold
> >in part or whole in or as another document, or translated into any language
> >or computer language, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
> >magnetic, chemical, optical, manual or otherwise without the expressed
> >written permission of the author or artist (fill in the name here)
> >
> >This is usually needed to be placed on or before the second page of the
> >portfolio, magazine or other bound item, and in the case where seperate
> >(non bound) artistic works are sold, should also be placed on the back
> >of every peice.
If this notice is placed on the portfolio, AND the purchaser is made aware
of these conditions before the purchase, and agrees to them by his
purchase, then it can be made enforcable.
> >Without that, the person in question has every legal right to do what
> >he's doing.. and we can be sued on four or five different counts if we
> >try and obstruct that.
Yep...
> >However.. I will note that we do not have his name scheduled for a
> >table at AAC this year
> >
> >I thought you might want to know.. as this guy sounds like someone who
> >knows the rules, and would delight in dragging you all off to court.
> >
> >Caribou coos, "Now, if he is selling copies of the artwork, is that a
> >problem without that information?"
> >
> >If you can prove that the material he is selling was copied off of work
> >that _did_ have that information on it, then he is fully liable."
That is definitely copyright violation, and there is no grey area there...
ilr
[I'm Pissed]
The Country I live in is moving onto 5 trillion dollars of Dept.
That's about $70,000 for each of us. Put that in your
"oh god it's the end of the world because I think someone's
cheesing me out of some chump change" pipe and smoke it.
I'd seriously doubt that there's a lot of people in the fandom
who are in it for the money. But Fucking Shit Man, this
discussion isn't furry. It's petty penny pinching economics.
I see atleast 2 or 3 discussions 20 times furrier than this
get passed up every damn day here. Doug Winger was
right. At first I didn't believe him, but I'm starting to now.
I just want to know, does anyone out there actually read
those other lonely discussions headers? My impression
of nearly everyone in this Ng is that a petty bickering is
the only thing that'll stretch your sheath.
-ilr(quickly becoming the first Furry Nihilist)
Daphne Lage
Okay... here's where I stand on this.
As long as this guy is not actually reproducing extra prints or portfolios -
just selling copies that he bought from an artist or dealer - then he has
the right to do whatever he wants.
If he wants to break up a portfolio and sell off the prints he doesn't
want - then I don't see a problem at all with this.
Honestly, I read the original post and I don't understand at all what all
the fuss is about. He's not doing anything illegal - okay, maybe he's being
an a**hole about it but he's not doing anything wrong. I just have trouble
wondering who would want to buy xeroxes torn out of a fanzine anyway. I
mean, some fanzines are pretty cheap for the art count. Who would decide
that they only wanted to buy a particular page?
The story that I was a little more concerned about - and Glen, correct me if
I'm wrong - was one that I heard that happened at one of the ConFURences.
Some guy was selling off his collection of Terrie Smith prints from his
hotel room. Sounds innocent so far... But when Glen got a good look at one
of these "prints" bought off of this guy (I heard it was one of Glen's
friends that bought the piece) Glen noticed that the print wasn't an
original at all. The guy was actually selling *Xeroxes* of his collection
(blantant copyright infringement). The thing that got me was that this guy
was staying at the CF hotel but *no one* was able to catch the guy. Worse
off, it seemed that no one was willing to tell who this guy was at all! So
not only was this guy breaking copyright law - so called fans refused to
turn this guy in! I guess getting their precious images was more important.
That's what I'm more worried about. Will there be any *real* support when
someone pops up and *really* breaks the law?
--Daphne Lage
****************************************************************
The EgoWorks - Free catalog available -
http://www.intercall.com/~egoraven/
****************************************************************
TALL TAILS - The Official Homepage
http://www.intercall.com/~egoraven/ttmain.htm
****************************************************************
The Secret of N.I.M.H. Justin and Jenner Shrine
http://www.intercall.com/~egoraven/nimh.htm
****************************************************************
"The only thing you can change is yourself,
but sometimes that changes everything." - Anonymous
****************************************************************
Glen Wooten
> me if I'm wrong - was one that I heard that happened at one of the
> ConFURences. Some guy was selling off his collection of Terrie Smith
> prints from his hotel room. Sounds innocent so far... But when Glen got
> a good look at one of these "prints" bought off of this guy (I heard it
> was one of Glen's friends that bought the piece) Glen noticed that the
> print wasn't an original at all. The guy was actually selling *Xeroxes*
> of his collection (blantant copyright infringement). The thing that got
> me was that this guy was staying at the CF hotel but *no one* was able
> to catch the guy. Worse off, it seemed that no one was willing to tell
> who this guy was at all! So not only was this guy breaking copyright law
> - so called fans refused to turn this guy in! I guess getting their
> precious images was more important.
That's pretty much it. We didn't find out about it till Sunday
afternoon, so by that time, it was a little late to do anything about
it. I did have a few people tell me "Oh, yeah - there was this guy...",
but didn't (or couldn't) give me anything more than that.
Although it's gotten to be less of a problem lately (since Mel & I have
been doing our lectures...), for a while there, when the subject of
copyrights would come up, there would be someone whining about how it
wasn't fair that artists protected their "so-called" copyrights, denying
the fans of their artwork. Usually couched in very noble language, it
always stripped down to "But then I'd have to PAY to get her artwork?
Why should I do that when I can just copy it for free?" But that,
THANKFULLY is less of an attitude now than it was...
> That's what I'm more worried about. Will there be any *real* support
> when someone pops up and *really* breaks the law?
That's a basic arguement in an ethics class: why sweat the little
things - Just worry about the big things. Of course, since generally
speaking, the "big things" are just a whole lot of "little things", if
you let all those little things slide, aren't you creating a "big
thing"? If you fix a problem when it's small, it never gets the chance
to become a big problem. That works for medicine, home repair - and the
law...
Tim Gadd
>Erm, no.
>The example is valid on any scale and regardless of whether or not the
>guy makes a profit. He can even give the portfolio away for free!
>He (in theory) costs me $10 for each portfolio that I *might* have
>sold. If he does this only once, I've lost $20-$30 on potential
>sales. That's harmful. Ouch. I can't prove that I would have sold
>those copies, but *he* bought one, now didn't he?
>If he gives away his copy to his close buddy, that means his buddy NO
>LONGER needs a copy! Get it? Lost sales.
I can't believe you're actually complaining about the prospect of
someone buying your art and giving it to someone as a gift. Christ,
artists better start stamping 'For personal use only' on their work.
AFAIC art is a commodity, this is a free market economy, and bitching
over things like this is pointless. Buying things, busting them up,
and selling the parts is completely standard from everything from used
cars to airlines. If someone is engaged in a legal mercantile practice
which is causing you a loss of profit (and I still suspect that
re-selling loose-leaf laser-scans from a 'portfolio' is completely
legal), then think of a way to counter that via your own marketing
practices. Present your portfolios in such a way that to take them
apart would damage them and make the pieces less attractive and less
saleable; don't put out portfolios with only one or two popular prints
in them (at the moment he seems to be taking advantage of the fact
that most people seem not to want the bulk of what's in the
portfolios); stop putting out portfolios altogether, and just sell
prints. Find a way around him.
--
Tim Gadd
Hobart, Tasmania
Lupercal .com
@wolf-web
Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Coffeehouse/1161/
'We see the moon but cannot remember its meaning.'
- Edward Brathwaite
Farlo
Tim Gadd did speaketh thus:
>I can't believe you're actually complaining about the prospect of
>someone buying your art and giving it to someone as a gift. Christ,
>artists better start stamping 'For personal use only' on their work.
Well, okay - I got a LITTLE CARRIED AWAY. Sosume. =:)
I love gifts, myself, and giving gifts is a *good thing*.
I'd hope that the guy would buy a copy for *himself* and *his friend*.
(and his *family*, and close *acquantinces*, and .... )
"Joe , you gotta have one of these portfolios. It's by Farlo"
"My apartment burned down with all my other possesions, but thank God
I saved my copy of Farlo's portfolio"
(why, no, I don't have a big ego, why do you ask?)
>If someone is engaged in a legal mercantile practice
>which is causing you a loss of profit, then think of a way to counter that via your own marketing
>practices.
Why make the artists work this hard?
>Present your portfolios in such a way that to take them
>apart would damage them and make the pieces less attractive and less
>saleable; don't put out portfolios with only one or two popular prints
>in them (at the moment he seems to be taking advantage of the fact
>that most people seem not to want the bulk of what's in the
>portfolios); stop putting out portfolios altogether, and just sell
>prints. Find a way around him.
Why is he in my way?
Brian O'connell
Heh, sounds about the same as the "Skunk F**kers" posters from Baycon
way back when, when the guy who produced the posters (I was the only witness
and the only one capable of identifying him on sight, but apparently nobody
cared) was printing them out on the xerox machine *at* the room where the
party was being held... Everyone raised a big stink about it, but when it
came down to it, nobody wanted to lift a finger against him...
These same sorta things occur with the newsgroups that repost my
materials or other artists (I speak for myself, because hey, I don't like it
anymore than they do when their stuff gets ripped off), where a good deal
will bitch, gripe, and moan, maybe after they've saved the images...
Annnd of course there's the majority of furries who hear that an artist
wants to be paid for his or her artwork... You know, the ones who have $20+
a month for ISPs (or go to a university with a T1 minimum, poor suffering
bastards), can afford to upgrade their computers alla time, etc... They can
afford to attend furry cons, and to pay at least part of a room cost... I
mean hey, these are the same individuals who look at the artists who're
trying to generate income from their art, and say "Maybe you should get a
real job", when they're the ones who should get one... Hey, artists are
interpreters for the aesthetically challenged, a unique skill, and depending
on the quality level of their artwork, should be paid for utilizing it...
Plain and simple? We do what they can't... In the good old days, having a
unique skill that produced something attractive, useful, or entertaining,
was something you could (and should) profit from... Screw this "you will
draw for free, to make the proletariate happy" attitude I keep seeing in
furrydom and other genres... This is a capitalist's world, comrade, live
with it... Remember it's a codependant system, if you don't support the
artists and writers, they won't support you, and unless you wanna see the
newsgroups being swamped with 250% more bad spooge and "art" from furries
who think they're artgods because they figured out how to con their parents
outta giving them a scanner... Well, use some common sense, people...
No, I don't expect that we should be getting every bit of the furries
income, and I'm not saying to do art only for profit, just that people need
to put these things into perspective...
Anyhoo, ennuf of my ranting... Thank you, Please Please Please Get a
Life Foundation!
Glen Wooten wrote in message ...
Micole Khemarrica
Well, if *you* bother to read any of the other thread, you might note
that this little ermine rarely gets involved in the nastier stuff. I'm
unfortunately involved in this one because I *am* running Artists Alley,
and I didn't think this kind of political semantics was going to be an
issue... *SIGH*
ermine (hopelessly optimistic in SPITE of this crap)
[Undo the Knot to Reply.]
Micole Khemarrica
Brian O'connell wrote:
>
> Well, from what I've seen, it's a smattering of those who say there's
> nothing wrong with the jerk ripping off the artists, and secondly the
> lawyers for AAC saying that artists don't have the right to tell him to not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pardon me, Brian, but who the heck are you talking about?? I don't see
anyone here besides little ol flame-causing me making an Official
Statement, and that was because I published the segment of the Dealers
Den rules regarding piracy.
I'm an artist, remember? I wanna make a buck, too, and I don't want to
be mule about it but I know how _many_ artists are trying to make their
_dinner money_ by selling their art.
As this thread's original comment started, he's not copying the artwork,
he's just scalping. While it's not illegal, I will question it solely
from the point of view of restraint of trade for the originating artist.
ermine
Brian O'connell
Well, okay, I was wrong, but what I was percieving was basically a lot
of "Yeah, we don't like it either, but what are ya gonna do?"... Still does
nothing for my faith in the genre or the business...
Micole Khemarrica wrote in message <3593A3AD...@SamePlace.com>...
Allen Kitchen
Brian O'connell <br...@nospam.vivid.net> wrote in article
<6n06g0$v6d$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...
> Annnd of course there's the majority of furries who hear that an
artist
> wants to be paid for his or her artwork... You know, the ones who have
$20+
> a month for ISPs (or go to a university with a T1 minimum, poor suffering
> bastards), can afford to upgrade their computers alla time, etc... They
can
> afford to attend furry cons, and to pay at least part of a room cost...
I make NO appologies for being semi-successful. It took 13 years of
my life to achieve this level of technical excellence, and I've given up
a number of things to get here. I've missed concerts, gathers, cons,
and just hanging out more often than I care to think about.
I'm a fan of the genre. I'm not wealthy, but I do buy some furry comics
and portfolios. I also attend a couple of cons now and then. Not many,
as I'm not rich, but a couple. I don't upgrade all the time, I don't have
a big budget for cars or computers or software, or anything come to think
of it. Yet I still buy art from artists such as you.
I
> mean hey, these are the same individuals who look at the artists who're
> trying to generate income from their art, and say "Maybe you should get a
> real job", when they're the ones who should get one... Hey, artists are
> interpreters for the aesthetically challenged, a unique skill, and
depending
> on the quality level of their artwork, should be paid for utilizing it...
I never said they shouldn't. That's why I put some money where my
mouth is. At the same time, you're berating people like me who hand
over green paper is insulting to say the least. I have a "real job".
That's
how I have a little bit of green paper. And I've never once put an artist
down for wanting to make some income off their skill!
"aesthetically challenged..." Hoo boy. Just because I can't make my
hands generate what my mind's eye envisions... That's why I WRITE
bucko! *growl* I try to give SOMETHING back to the fandom for all it
has given me.
Put down that paintbrush BOC... It's far too wide to paint everyone
in the fandom with...
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
Brian O'connell
Allen Kitchen wrote in message <01bda10a$545ba900$8f301bc6@spgspare>...
>
>
>Brian O'connell <br...@nospam.vivid.net> wrote in article
><6n06g0$v6d$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...
>
>> Annnd of course there's the majority of furries who hear that an
>artist
>> wants to be paid for his or her artwork... You know, the ones who have
>$20+
>> a month for ISPs (or go to a university with a T1 minimum, poor suffering
>> bastards), can afford to upgrade their computers alla time, etc... They
>can
>> afford to attend furry cons, and to pay at least part of a room cost...
>
>I make NO appologies for being semi-successful. It took 13 years of
>my life to achieve this level of technical excellence, and I've given up
>a number of things to get here. I've missed concerts, gathers, cons,
>and just hanging out more often than I care to think about.
I've encountered are broke, the only reason I make a living from my art is
that I *do* have repeat customers, as opposed to the few one sketch jobs
that pop up now and then... But the fact remains, many of them go to cons,
pore over the artists' tables and then shrug and move on when they can't
find any freebies...
>
>I'm a fan of the genre. I'm not wealthy, but I do buy some furry comics
>and portfolios. I also attend a couple of cons now and then. Not many,
>as I'm not rich, but a couple. I don't upgrade all the time, I don't have
>a big budget for cars or computers or software, or anything come to think
>of it. Yet I still buy art from artists such as you.
>
>I
>> mean hey, these are the same individuals who look at the artists who're
>> trying to generate income from their art, and say "Maybe you should get a
>> real job", when they're the ones who should get one... Hey, artists are
>> interpreters for the aesthetically challenged, a unique skill, and
>depending
>> on the quality level of their artwork, should be paid for utilizing it...
as advantaged (ie: $30K+ a year income), stating that if I don't like
drawing for nothing, that I should get a "real" job...
>
>I never said they shouldn't. That's why I put some money where my
>mouth is. At the same time, you're berating people like me who hand
>over green paper is insulting to say the least. I have a "real job".
>That's
>how I have a little bit of green paper. And I've never once put an artist
>down for wanting to make some income off their skill!
did I say you specifically, nor did I name names... Jeeze, make an
observation about one group of fans and another thinks I'm talking about
them...
>
>"aesthetically challenged..." Hoo boy. Just because I can't make my
>hands generate what my mind's eye envisions... That's why I WRITE
>bucko! *growl* I try to give SOMETHING back to the fandom for all it
>has given me.
ohwell...
>
>Put down that paintbrush BOC... It's far too wide to paint everyone
>in the fandom with...
spoke English, would I be insulting everyone who doesn't? Try running a
table at a con sometime, you'll get a reeeaaallll good idea of exactly what
I speak...
>
>Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
>
>
Leigh Kimmel
In article <35927E64...@bigger.net>
Jeff Mancebo <je...@bigger.net> writes:
> > 2) In _MY_ opinion, scalping is harmful to the artist. There's a
> > difference between Person A with my art having Person B comming up and
> > saying "Would you be willing to part with 'toy' from your collection? I
> > really want it!" and Person A _telling_ Person B "Psst! Wanna buy a copy
> > of 'toy'? I got it here..." It is especially harmful if the portfolio
> > is still being produced -- it discourages potential sales.
>
> The brown bunny nods.. "It CAN be harmfull. It can put an artist
> out of business. It is also LEGAL though."
Why should it put the artist out of business? As long as the seller has
not made any copies of the piece of art before surrendering it to the
buyer, the "lost sale" only exists in a theoretical sense -- that
perhaps each of them might choose to buy their own keeper copies,
rather than one relinquishing his/her copy to the other. I've also
heard some people complain that shared copies (in which a single
legitimately-purchased copy is handed back and forth between the
co-owners on an agreed-upon schedule) are also a robbery of the artist,
because otherwise the co-owners might each have bought their own
copies. (In actuality, it's more probable that *no* copies would've
been bought, because a shared copy is usually bought when neither
individual has enough to by it, and they pool their funds to buy the
single copy. Without that option, both individuals probably would have
to do without). Heck, under that logic, you could even claim that
reading a friend's copy harms the artist, because you didn't buy a
second copy for yourself, even if you have no interest or inclination
in obtaining a keeper copy. Carried to its logical extreme, that kind
of argument would force us to purchase every art work and portfolio we
see, because deciding not to buy it would hurt the artists.
And if the portfolio or zine in question is still in print and can be
obtained from the artist for less than this person pays from the dealer
or collector, I have two words for them. Caveat emptor.
"I have a right to be blind sometimes... I really don't see the
signal!"
-- Admiral Lord Nelson
Leigh Kimmel -- writer, artist and historian
kim...@siu.edu http://members.tripod.com/~kimmel/lhkwebpage.html
Listowner of Virtual Selyn, the Sime~Gen mailing list,
sime...@siu.edu
Ask me how to order the new Sime~Gen novel
Allen Kitchen
Brian O'connell <br...@nospam.vivid.net> wrote in article
<6n0bal$1h5$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...
> And just because you don't, doesn't mean nobody else does either... Not
once
> did I say you specifically, nor did I name names... Jeeze, make an
> observation about one group of fans and another thinks I'm talking about
> them...
I don't know about everyone else. Nor am I speaking for them.
I just object to very large brushstrokes covering everyone...
Come on. Not everyone in the fandom is a louse, trying to
glom up free art. In fact, other than some things Moonstalker
and Paracelsus have drawn, I haven't gotten any freebies from
anyone. Even those people who offer to draw my character don't.
(I've learned black fur is challenging. My rotten luck.) I don't
worry about it, since free pictures isn't my reason for being here.
Sure, I enjoy YERF and Yiffco. I like seeing the art, and how
the artists improve with practice. But I also like purchasing
the hardcopys from the artists when I can.
> Heh, I tried giving everything to furrydom that I could, but nobody
noticed,
> ohwell...
I noticed. And I think you are a very talented artist. A bit irritable
perhaps, but a good artist.
The fandom is a hobby. I write for it, and I make far less at a con
than you do. Consider yourself lucky. You can at least sell what
you produce. I can't sell a story at a con, period, but I've
seen art sell for hundreds at auction. It's not a business, nor
should you consider it a way to make a living. It should be for
fun, and a little bit of profit on the side. I get the feeling you expect
too much from something that should be a fun side interest.
Granted, I really don't know. Just the impression you give me.
> Once again, I said "Majority", if I said the majority of people in the
UIS
> spoke English, would I be insulting everyone who doesn't? Try running a
> table at a con sometime, you'll get a reeeaaallll good idea of exactly
what
> I speak...
Well, nobody'd buy any stories. But I'll sit and watch an artist's
table for an hour someday, just for the raw data. I've heard
others grumble about the "fanboys" hogging space and not
buying anything. One artist I know won't get a dealer's table or
anything because of it. I'll keep a better eye open in Memphis to
see for myself. Thanks for the idea BO.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
Leigh Kimmel
In article <01bda060$7d73af40$8f301bc6@spgspare>
"Allen Kitchen" <all...@blkbox.com> writes:
> These are complete books though, not parts. And I don't
> have the right to collect favorite chapters of different stories and
> sell them as a custom compilation, now do I?
What would be the point? A single chapter chopped from a novel does not
stand alone, so a collection of unrelated "good bits" of various novels
would not make any sense.
By contrast, a single picture generally can still be appreciated even
in isolation from the rest of the portfolio or series.
Leigh Kimmel
In article <01bda062$23848b10$8f301bc6@spgspare>
"Allen Kitchen" <all...@blkbox.com> writes:
> If I sell a story to a magazine, they don't have the right to resell it to
> another magazine for a profit. The rights to a story are not
> transferrable.
> So if I sell to Amazing Stories, I don't need to worry about a chapter
> being
> printed in Penthouse instead. Shouldn't compilations work the same way?
> You are buying one thing: the compilation. You are buying the rights for
> one collection, not the rights for the individual works.
This is comparing apples and oranges. The story sale situation is
completely different. When you "sell" a story to a magazine, unless
you're selling all rights (in which they have the legal right to do
whatever they d*mn well please with it), you are actually just selling
a certain reproduction right, generally First North American Serial
Rights, First World Rights, or First Anthology Rights. These rights are
effectively licenses for the publisher to make the specified sort of
copies and distribute them in the specified region.
By contrast, we are not talking about making copies, but reselling
copies that are already made by the artist (or his/her agent) who has
been paid for those copies. Telling someone that s/he cannot resell my
pieces along with other people's pieces would be like me walking into a
flea market or garage sale, finding bags of magazines being sold in job
lots, and complaining because one bag holds a Playboy, a Penthouse and
a copy of some magazine I have a story in.
Jeff Mancebo
flashcat wrote:
>
> One other problem which I've encountered with various artist friends
> who've sold work is that the purchaser often assumes that, in buying an
> original piece of art, they also acquire full rights to reproduce it or
> submit it for publication. This is frequently not the intent of the
> creator, but not all artists think to bring this up at the time of the
> contracting of the work, or when they're turning it over to the buyer.
boojum nods.. "On the other hand I've known artists who take
commissions without specifying that they retain the copyright
and then the ARTIST makes copies and sells them."
"Oddly enough a commission is Work for Hire and unless it is
specified in writing the Copyright belongs to the person who
hired you." He smiles. "Both sides need some education,
it would solve alot of problems."
boojum the brown bunny
Jeff Mancebo
Farlo wrote:
>
> Jeff Mancebo did speaketh thus:
>
> >Farlo wrote:
> >
> >> Karl Meyer did speaketh thus:
> >> >Reselling artwork in itself is fine and
> >> >not ripping off the artists in the least.
> >>
> >> The artist is missing a potential sale, and that's the harm done.
> >>
> >
> > boojum shakes his head. "This is commerce, not theft. He did not steal
> >from the artist.. Mind you, he didn't HELP the artist either. That is
> >generally the meaning of RippOff, Theft."
>
> I never said "Theft" or "Ripoff" - those are Karl's words, bunny! =:)
boojum smiles.. "Sorry, you quoted the part where I said
that reselling artwork is not ripping off the artists and I
thought thats what you were responding to."
"I didn't say there was no harm, just that the person
was not engaging in theft."
boojum the brown bunny
Dr. Skorzy MacFarlaighn
In article <6n0bal$1h5$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>, "Brian O'connell"
<br...@nospam.vivid.net> wrote:
> that pop up now and then... But the fact remains, many of them go to cons,
> pore over the artists' tables and then shrug and move on when they can't
> find any freebies...
Interesting facts there, Brian... your perception of "many" of the fans
seems radically different than my observations. I tend to peruse the
artists' tables, and then shrug and move on when I can't find anything
that I *want*... I doubt the "majority" of people that wander through the
Dealer's Room is expecting to find something for free. Not saying there
couldn't be some folks like that, but that's quite a overlapping, blanket
statement to cover the "majority" of the fandom with.
Do you truly believe that the "majority" of the fans that wander the
Dealer's room are looking for freebies? *chuckle*..
You're assuming that if someone doesn't buy after looking that they're
deadbeats? Well... that's a lovely way to do business. Perhaps you should
put a sign on your table saying "You look, you buy"...
The purpose of displaying your wares at a Con aren't *just* to sell them.
They work as advertisements of your work, to let new folks see new artists
and their work. That's how, many many years ago, I discovered artwork
that I liked..and later kept my "business" with said artist. Because they
had their portfolio on a desk that allowed me to *freely* page through it
without the "evil eye" of wasting their time by just *looking*.
If you give me the impression that I'm not welcomed to do this, or, that
I'm *expected* to buy something just for the "privilege" of seeing your
work..then I'm most *certainly* going to take my money elsewhere.
Reminds me of one of those electronic "shack" vendors you see in
Manhattan..who get annoyed if you want to see a camera, decide it doesn't
have the features/qualities you want, and then decide not to buy it.
> But once again I have seen this many times, whereas anyone I would consider
> as advantaged (ie: $30K+ a year income), stating that if I don't like
> drawing for nothing, that I should get a "real" job...
First, anyone that expects you to draw for nothing is an idiot.. but you
already know this. Second, there aren't many artists in this fandom that
can claim 100% of their living income is from their artwork. Anyone that
*expects* to live off this fandom is quite likely going to get
disappointed. And, sir, its not just that way in Furrydom. Any "fandom"
is exactly the same way...
If you have a steady, and reliable income from doing artwork for this
fandom *and* can lively solely on it. Congratulations, you're in the
greatest of miniorities and should be pretty proud of this fact.
> And just because you don't, doesn't mean nobody else does either... Not once
> did I say you specifically, nor did I name names... Jeeze, make an
> observation about one group of fans and another thinks I'm talking about
> them...
Yes, you said "they" and "majority". Broad-brush. You were nebulously
defining people that suspiciously looks like *everyone* that comes by your
table to just *look* at your work..
> Heh, I tried giving everything to furrydom that I could, but nobody noticed,
> ohwell...
That's an endemic problem with this (and other) fandoms. You bust your
tail to produce something, and it gets grossly ignored. I started writing
in this fandom with a *personal* desire to create something for myself. I
have never felt any responsibility for producing my work on a timely
manner.. this is a *hobby* to me, and nothing more.
The fact that any creative person must remember is to create for *oneself*
and not others. Its tough being motivated to do anything if you feel its
not appreciated. However, anyone that creates somethign with the
"expectation" that its going to sell, is most certainly following a hollow
hope.
I wonder how many artists have cranked out several works, had high hopes
and dreams of making $$$ at a con..then having those dreams dashed when
none sell. Next phase is getting angry "at them" and deciding to pack your
paintbrush and "not produce anymore you ingrates!".. That's akin to
saying "you won't buy my work? You're an asshole!"
*chuckle*.. Heh.. Fine. My attitude will always be one of indifference to
those that do.
"Anyone that takes this seriously, deserves to..".. more apt words
couldn't be applied.
> Once again, I said "Majority",
Hmmm.. nope. Ask yourself. Do you remember the *nice* folks you've met
at your table. The ones that take a looksie at your wares, compliment
them..then may or maybe not purchase one, then politely go on their way?
Probably not.. you remember the fanboys, the ones that make a negative
impression. Suddenly, those handful of people become "majority" of the
fans?
-Skorzy
--
J. Scott Rogers ** sko...@cyberzone.net **
UMASS Medical Center ** jeff....@ummed.edu **
Program in Molecular Medicine >> Dr. Skorzy MacFarlaighn <<
Worcester, Massachusetts Albany Anthrocon '98 Artshow Rat
--
"The Biorg Universe" Anthropomorphic Fiction w/J.L.Eddy
http://www.otterspace.com/~waltzer/tftbu.html
Jeff Mancebo
Farlo wrote:
>
>
> Anyfur wanna buy some underwear, cheap?
> (Practically new! No "burn" marks! Reliable and "April Fresh"...)
boojum blecks and makes a face.. "Hey, if you can find a
buyer for it..." He pauses, thinking.. "The silly thing is
you CAN buy used underwear.. Its in the back of the raunchier
porno magazines. You can buy soiled underwear from your
favorite porn star."
He shakes his head.. "The things some people will buy."
boojum the brown bunny
Leigh Kimmel
In article <3592df1d...@news.fysh.org>
stan...@abac.com (Farlo) writes:
> Erm, no.
> The example is valid on any scale and regardless of whether or not the
> guy makes a profit. He can even give the portfolio away for free!
>
> He (in theory) costs me $10 for each portfolio that I *might* have
> sold. If he does this only once, I've lost $20-$30 on potential
> sales. That's harmful. Ouch. I can't prove that I would have sold
> those copies, but *he* bought one, now didn't he?
>
> If he gives away his copy to his close buddy, that means his buddy NO
> LONGER needs a copy! Get it? Lost sales. If he thought my stuff was
> so cool, he'd have bought a copy for himself *and* his friend. I get
> the impression that most people don't know what it costs UP FRONT to
> make a portfolio. Ten dollars is a BARGAIN!
>
> (Gee, I read like a carnival barker ... LOL)
>
> Furthermore, if he sells the portfolio pages at $1.25, he *is* making
> a profit while undercutting my price by 25 cents. Why buy a single
> page from good ol' Farlo when you can buy it off this guy cheaper?
>
> He need only do this *once* and I lose, um - $10/.25 = $2.25
> That's enough for me to have bought the "Whopper Jr." value meal.
>
> He may not mean any harm, but if he does this *just once*, I will lose
> $2.25 to $30 dollars. (Does everybody follow this example?)
Woah! This would be true *if* and only *if* the person in question had
purchased one legitimate copy, then took it to a photocopier and made
pirate copies which s/he then handed out to friends.
However, if every single copy s/he's selling or giving away was
properly and legitimately purchased from you, you have the same money
you'd have gotten had you sold the copies directly to the ultimate
recipient. It just passes through an additional set of hands before it
gets there.
I regularly give friends and family presents of books and art that I
have legitimately purchased. I don't believe that I've robbed the
creators of these works of any sales by becoming one more link in the
chain of distribution, even when I (very carefully to avoid damage)
read some of the books before actually wrapping them up and handing
them over.
Leigh Kimmel
In article <3592e8cc...@news.fysh.org>
stan...@abac.com (Farlo) writes:
> If I buy a "Farlo" portfolio for $10, sell it to Joe for $10, and he
> sells it again to Sue for $10, how many copies did Farlo sell? He sold
> only one. He could have sold three.
Theoretically true, *but* only one person posesses the single copy at
any given time. When each person sells it, s/he loses possession of the
copy and retains only the memory of having had it. S/he cannot look at
it again unless the purchaser sells it back or agrees to loan it to
him/her.
In fact, it's more likely that no copies at all would be sold, because
without resales and shared copies bought with pooled money, the
potential buyers would probably end up deciding to do without or buy
something cheaper from someone else instead. And that results in no
sale at all for you. I'd rather sell one shared copy to two kids who
pooled their money than no copies because neither kid has enough money
by him/herself to buy a copy.
Leigh Kimmel
In article <35931713...@bigger.net>
Jeff Mancebo <je...@bigger.net> writes:
> boojum blushes.. "Your right, I forgot to include that bit. Sorry about
> that. I'm even the one who has been thinking of taking photographs of the
> original art work I've bought over the years and keeping it in a Safety
> Deposit box for Insurance purposes should something happen to my home."
I believe this would fall under fair use provisions -- it is a record
for your private use (and that of your insurance company should worst
come to worst, heaven forbid) to prove your possession of the art in
question, *not* to substitute for legitimately purchased prints. I
would suggest using a relatively low-quality film and camera rather
than the sort of fancy rigs artists use for making slides, in order to
prove that these are purely for insurance purposes by being just good
enough to make positive identification of the artwork in case the
artwork has to be valued for insurance purposes after a disaster
destroys it or it is stolen (yes, break-ins do happen and some thieves
actually do grab art rather than computers, stereos and TV's -- a
friend of mine had a substantial anime collection stolen earlier this
year).
If my art ever gets to the point that it's actually worth something in
monetary terms, I would not be opposed to a purchaser making such a
copy, provided that it is only used to establish ownership for
insurance purposes.
Leigh Kimmel
In article <359310e6...@news.fysh.org>
stan...@abac.com (Farlo) writes:
> Perhaps I can bring the topic back into focus:
> Buying a portfolio second-hand when it is readily available otherwise
> means that the artist does not see all the potential profit that (s)he
> might from producing the portfolio in the first place. The artist
> has, therefore, less incentive to make art for the public (i.e. you
> and I).
The lost sale only exists in a theoretical sense, in the same way that
every person who looks at something and decides to do without it rather
than spend money on it is a lost sale, and every person who never has
the opportunity to buy because s/he didn't know the item was available
for purchase is a lost sale. Carry it far enough, and we'd be obligated
to buy *everything* that's on sale, which is patently absurd.
By contrast, a pirated copy is a lost sale in a meaningful sense
because the possessor has something without the originator having
benefitted from it. When an intermediate owner sells a legitimately
purchased item to another person (or gives it as a gift to a friend),
the first person surrenders possession of the single copy to the second
and retains only the memory of having possessed it in the past. If s/he
wants to look at it again, s/he must either buy it back, borrow it, or
buy a new copy.
If you forbid people to buy used copies, or to pool their money to buy
shared copies, you're likely to *decrease* your sales because people
will choose to do without entirely. I'd rather sell one copy to two
people who pool their money to share it than to sell no copies at all
because each person doesn't have enough to buy a personal copy and
decides to do without instead.
>
> When I buy art, my purchase says, "Your art is special. I wish to
> encourage you with a tangible reward.". When I have no money I offer
> compliments, instead (everyone likes compliments, especially when they
> are well-deserved).
Let's not confuse business transactions with social interaction here.
Brian O'connell
Never mind, can't say a damnned thing or state an opinion without it being
taken out of context and distorted way outta proportion... Just leave me out
of it...
Glen Wooten
Actually, you are never involved in a "Work For Hire" situation unless
you specifically sign a paper to that effect. Even out of furry fandom,
many of the prints you see in the wildlife art field (and the like) are
commissions, and the artist retains publishing rights. That's the way
the law works by default. If the artist creates the work out of his/her
head, then it's totally their creation, and they can do what they want
with it. If it's done to exact specs supplied by the customer, then you
are dealing with someone else's copyright AS WELL, so mutual agreements
have to be made.
Unless you SPECIFICALLY sign away all rights in a written contract, it
isn't Work For Hire...