Recycling Artwork
Jake McDermott
Hmmmm...
Is it just me, or are other people a little peeved by artists who recycle
artwork. I mean...I know the copyright is theirs and all, and it is their
right to use said work as they please, but I'm finding there are a few
"repeat offender" artists who regularly use the same artwork in multiple
'zines. Or even worse, put them up on the web after you pay for them in
print.
I'm finding it to be a bit of a nuisance when I go out and buy something
for say....$25. I adhere to the artist's request and the rules of good
moral conduct and do not scan, xerox, or otherwise reproduce the work.
Then I go out and buy El Cheapo digest for $2 and find...the EXACT SAME
THING. Maybe a bit smaller, but it's still the same thing. Or maybe when
I spend $20 of a certain CD and resist any temptations that I may have to
make things "public." Then said artist goes and slips it up on a webpage.
For free. Right after the CD comes off the presser.
It feels like I'm being cheated of money. I realize the rights of artists
to do as they please, but I also realize the right of a consumer to get a
quality product. It's taking money right out of my wallet when I pay for
the same darn thing three times in different books, or pay for a piece of
art, only to have it crop up on the web BY the artist the very next day.
The works are NOT old, they are in fact relatively new.
From now on, I'm going to start protesting with my wallet. It's one thing
to put art out in public after it's old...but god bless it, don't make it
public right after it's realeased.
Anfur else think the same way?
Dan Pankratz
Well, I'm not sure that this is the point you're trying to make, but...
At AAC last, in the charity auction, I bought an original by Conrad Wong called
Nanimwe. (Drop _dead_ gorgeous color pencils, and a coyote femme to boot!...
the brightest jewel of my collection...) At CF9 he was selling a color photocopy
of Nanimwe in the art auction, which got bid up to $75... did it bother me?
Not at all.
At CF9, I bought an original by Ginger/J. Willard called "Otter Ballet"
in the art auction. A month after CF I check out her web page and see that she is
selling color prints of Otter Ballet, and that anyone can download the gif or
whatever for free. Does _this_ bother me? Not at all.
The way I see it, the problem with selling originals at a place like CF is that
only one person is ever going to get to appreciate that work, unless it is also
available in print or on the web. If it's made available at a later date in a
less desireable, more distributable form for cheaper, hey, the more folks get a
chance to appreciate it, the better! It's like that "DRZAVA" illo Eric Blumrich
did which sold for some $200 or so in the auction... it wasn't available as a
photocopy at CF, so the only one who got to appreciate it was the fur that bought
it... _until_ Eric put it up on his webpage. Now everybody, myself among them,
can enjoy it, albeit in a "less desireable", less tangible electronic form, and
for a negligible incremental cost to me.
I recently paid $20 for HUZZAH! #29, and a copy of DRZAVA is in there as well.
(one of 200+ pages of art in that book...) Does this bother me? Again, no,
because not everyone has access to the web, and now I have a paper copy which is
to me more desireable than an electronic form. (and which cost me all of a dime)
Now those folks who don't browse the web, and who didn't buy DRZAVA at auction
but who do buy HUZZAH! can appreciate it too.
Does the fact that I can get Otter Ballet for free now in electronic form make me
wish I didn't pay the bucks for the original? Neah, hard to say... I like the
piece a lot, but I don't regret what I did... after all, it _is_ the original.
I might have bought a color photocopy instead of the original had the copy come
out nice, but again, it wasn't available at CF, and I hated teh prospect of never
seeing that work again. Now if I had paid one or 2 bucks for an electronic copy
of Otter Ballet, and then later found it to be free, I might be a little
irritated, but not much, because I understand that folks have to make a living,
and that making stuff available on the web costs money, and that I get an _awful_
lot of viewing pleasure from furry web resources that don't cost me a _dime_
more than what I spend already for online access.
I have, in the past, bought the original of a work that I had seen, and gotten,
for free on the web first... most notably Kese's inked original of "Lonely Night"
in her Trickster series. I have also bought color photocopies, _not_ originals,
of art of Andre Heinonen's that was already present, free, on my hard drive.
Maybe I'm an anomaly, but hey, there's something about a tangible piece of paper
that really does it for me.
I have not bought any of those CDroms which you mention, mainly because I do find
it silly to pay money for an electronic copy of a work, _even_ if that electronic
copy is not available anywhere else. It sounds like that's the bet you were
making... that the stuff available on the disk was not available anywhere else.
That's not a bet that I would make... YM varied, obviously.
Now, the issue of "recycled art" in the fanzines and APA's is a little different,
but it bears mention here. To give an *gulp!* example, Terrie Smith is notorious
for sending stuff into fanzines like YARF!, Pawprints, and HUZZAH! that has been
available on the market for years before it ever made it into the book... but the
difference there is that her art, whie it was available previously for $7 a pop
as a color print, is almost always _no_ longer available as such by the time the
fanzine comes out. The only way many folks would ever see it, short of spending
an hour or two at a con leafing through her out-of-print portfolios, is in that
b/w zine. Once again, the art is getting wider distribution at lower cost in a
less desireable form after an initial period of limited distribution at a higher
cost and in a more desireable form.
I don't buy the fanzines for Terrie's art, because I've seen most or all of it
long before it appeared there, and (hopefully) acquired copies of those pieces I
liked best. I buy those fanzines for the art and stories therein which are not
available anywhere else, either now or in the future, which IMO makes up greater
than 90% of the material in the zine. That 10% doesn't bother me, even though I
pay for it.
What _does_ bother me is a comic book which solely or majorly reprints stuff
which appeared previously in a fanzine which I own, a fanzine which is still
commonly available...
-Dan
eblu...@yahoo.com
I was recently perusing the info sewer, and came across a post here on
AFF... I believe it was by Dan Pankratz. In part, the author wrote:
It's like that "DRZAVA" illo Eric Blumrich
> did which sold for some $200 or so in the auction... it wasn't available as
a
> photocopy at CF, so the only one who got to appreciate it was the fur that
bought
> it... _until_ Eric put it up on his webpage. Now everybody, myself among
them,
> can enjoy it, albeit in a "less desireable", less tangible electronic form,
and
> for a negligible incremental cost to me.
>
The illustratiopn in question sold for the sum of 35 dollars. I wasn't
too cheezed off about that, per se. Yeah, the illo took weeks of hand-
cramping labor, and I expected to get a tad more. In the end, I figured
"well, someone got a good deal, and at least it sold, period." However,
immediately after DRZAVA sold, A Terrie Smith "hand colored print
(PHOTOCOPY)" sold for over 500 dollars. I forget exactly what the subject of
Mrs. Smith's Illo was, but if memory serves me correctly, it was some
onanistic hermaphrodite picture- well executed, but a photocopied piece of
porno nonetheless.
In the wake of several experiences such as this, I got sick of seeing
months of work being sold for peanuts, while the fans poured out literally
thousands of dollars for base pornography and marker-colored photocopies. As
Auntie Shrew pointed out so eloquently in NIMH: "Cast not pearls before
swine."
To this end, it is extremely unlikely that I will have artwork for sale
in the AAC art show. I might put up a few NFS pieces, but I've pretty much
given up trying to sell work to a fandom that seems incapable of rising above
the lowest common denominator. If you want to buy my artwork, I'm available
for commissions. Just e-mail me at
And we'll talk.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Daphne Lage
Jake McDermott wrote in message <6kqqcs$n...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
Okay, here's my question to you... What did you expect when you paid $25 for
that original? This is not being asked sarcastically. I would really like to
know - what *did* you think you were going to get for $25 other than an
original piece?
For $25 I hardly think it's reasonable to expect an artist to put an image
"on hold" until you felt a "reasonable" time had passed before passing and
selling the image around. As you stated before, the image belongs to the
artist and unless some kind of agreement was made between the artist and the
owner, I don't think anyone has the right to put a limit on the image in
question - and especially not for $25.
When you bought that $25 original - you bought just that - an original. If
it really bothered you that the image ended up all over the place - sell the
original and stick with the $2 fanzines. At least you'll have a good chance
of at least making your money back. But which do you think would look better
up on your wall (if that was even your intention)?
Protest with your wallet all you want. It's your right to purchase what you
feel is your money's worth. But ask yourself this - what *exactly* do you
feel you're paying for? Or think you're paying for? Or *should* be paying
for? These are very important questions.
If all you wanted was the image, then there were obviously less expensive
ways to get that image You could have even asked the artist if they were
going to do reproductions - or you could have waited to see if the image
popped up anywhere. But if you're upset because you can't brag how you're
the only one with that particular image - then forgive me if I don't have
any sympathy for you.
It's not like you purchased a commission and the image ended up everywhere
BEFORE you even got your commission back. I really don't understand what
exactly your expectations are regarding this piece, or any artwork in
general.
Lemme give you an example as to what *my* expectations are -
Someone had gotten in contact with me concerning a commission. They wanted
me to design a logo and mascot for a band and they stated to me that they
were planning to do merchandising with this logo and mascot. Knowing that I
specifically state on my commission rules that I reserve the right to
reproduce any commissioned image as I see fit, they told me that they had
wanted *full* rights to the images they had wanted me to do. They didn't
want me to do *anything* with these pieces.
Weeellllll... If they had not stated they wanted full rights, the
commissions would have run them about approximately $80.00 - but I would
have made up my own merchandising as well. But since they wanted *all*
rights and basically were asking me to "abandon" the images totally, I had
to make this commission *worth* losing. I explained the situation and ended
up quoting a price *far higher* than they were hoping. After all, if they
were expecting me to give up the money I would have made off the pieces in
future merchandising sales and promotion, I had to make it worth my while.
Needless to say, I never heard from them again. They were expecting to get
exclusivity for $80. Yeah, right.
So that's my question - What are *your* expectations concerning art and
artists? After all, that was the problem, right? Your expectations were
obviously different from the expectations of the artist.
And I'm serious about wanting to know your answers too. Things can't improve
if no one knows what needs improving.
--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
****************************************************************
Jake McDermott
Oh wow. I do so love getting flamed for merely stating my thoughts
about a couple artists in particular using the same darn image in not
just one, but three or four 'zines.
Anyways - a couple clarifications.
1) I've not made a singular personal attack. Please refrain from
attacking me. It's not worth it, believe me. I've not made a personal
attack because I feel they are silly and trite.
2) In particular, I've seen one piece of artwork distributed in
three or four different mags after it's original release. My grief is not
so much in an artist using one image in two mags...but there are a couple
folks out there who are getting excessive. I don't like every other mag
or whatnot looking like every other mag I just bought. Literally.
No personal attacks are being made. And I fully realize the right
of the artist to do whatever they want with an image. I'm just asking
that some of them stop being so darn liberal with a Xerox. It's making me
think "Ugh. Is this neato-keen mag I'm looking at just going to be
photocopies of bits of every other mag I have?"
Kudos to those of you whom have given a creative, non-reactivist
response to this thread.
Thanks.
Jake McD
Daphne Lage
Jake McDermott wrote in message <6kt1dn$9...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
> Oh wow. I do so love getting flamed for merely stating my thoughts
>about a couple artists in particular using the same darn image in not
>just one, but three or four 'zines.
>
> Anyways - a couple clarifications.
>
> 1) I've not made a singular personal attack. Please refrain from
>attacking me. It's not worth it, believe me. I've not made a personal
>attack because I feel they are silly and trite.
I agree - and I hope you didn't take any of my statements as a personal
attack. The neutrality of the typed word can be really frustrating -
sometimes a simple question or comment can be read and understood totally
differently than intended.
>
> 2) In particular, I've seen one piece of artwork distributed in
>three or four different mags after it's original release. My grief is not
>so much in an artist using one image in two mags...but there are a couple
>folks out there who are getting excessive. I don't like every other mag
>or whatnot looking like every other mag I just bought. Literally.
I have the same problem with a lot of fanzines - that's why I don't purchase
fanzines anymore. But honestly, the only person I noticed doing this a lot
was Terrie Smith. Every fanzine I seemed to pick up in the past had almost
identical pieces from her - unless the pieces were so repeated it seemed
like her multiple contributions were all the same. You would think that an
artist who brags on her own webpage that she has over 800+ images to choose
from would be able to contribute to fanzines without repeating anything. But
hey, I'm just being bitter. >:(
Ironically, if all fanzines opted for and enforced a "limited image" rule
(that is, no images that were repeated to death), there wouldn't be enough
artwork to support as many fanzines as there are now. Only Gallery and
Huzzah seem to have a 50% rule that they enforce (50% of the 'trib has to be
new material) but 50% non-new, repeated to death material can still get on
one's nerves. And that's 2 publications out of... a lot of fanzines.
> No personal attacks are being made. And I fully realize the right
>of the artist to do whatever they want with an image. I'm just asking
>that some of them stop being so darn liberal with a Xerox. It's making me
>think "Ugh. Is this neato-keen mag I'm looking at just going to be
>photocopies of bits of every other mag I have?"
That was also one of the reasons I stopped contributing to fanzines myself
unfortunately - I was beginning to repeat images so much, even *I* was
getting fed up with them. I just couldn't keep up with all of the fanzines
that were asking for my contributions and being in just one fanzine doesn't
do much for promotion. So in the end, I just dropped them all. Now, I don't
even have the time to keep track of *any* fanzines. Hooray for Real Life. :P
> Kudos to those of you whom have given a creative, non-reactivist
>response to this thread.
I just hope I was one of them. *heh...*
Dan Pankratz
> It's like that "DRZAVA" illo Eric Blumrich
> > did which sold for some $200 or so in the auction... it wasn't available as
<snip>
> The illustratiopn in question sold for the sum of 35 dollars. I wasn't
_Woah_. I could have _sworn_ that it had been bid up to $170 by friday evening.
I was looking dead at the thing, and I rerember you standing there, talking
to some other SMOF-type and being happy that everything of yours had been bid on.
This is too wierd... does anybody else rerember seeing this piece with a
three-figure bid on it, or was I just on crack?
-Dan
Glen Wooten
eblu...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> However, immediately after DRZAVA sold, A Terrie Smith "hand colored
> print (PHOTOCOPY)" sold for over 500 dollars. I forget exactly what the
> subject of Mrs. Smith's Illo was, but if memory serves me correctly, it
> was some onanistic hermaphrodite picture- well executed, but a
> photocopied piece of porno nonetheless.
Well, not $500, and not hermaphrodite - but it was a hand-coloured print.
The original was a B&W request using characters that Terrie had the rights
to use, so a colour image was made of it (which was put in the show...)
The price it sold for WAS somewhat higher than Terrie expected - but there
have been other hand-coloured prints that have sold for higher at the con.
While it was a "photocopy base", it was the "original" version of it in
colour. A minor difference, but it's not like Terrie makes 20
hand-coloured prints, and puts them in 20 different shows (although there
are other artist who do that, yes...) Only once has Terrie put a duplicate
of something that has been in a show before.
And as for the final price, well... That's up to the buyer. It'll be
high, or it'll be low - it's not up to the artist...
--
Glen Wooten
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| primary: jag...@netcom.com | secondary: glen....@fanciful.org |
_____________________________________________________________________
| Terrie's web page: http://users.aol.com/amperprodx/littlepaw.html |
_____________________________________________________________________
Glen Wooten
Daphne Lage <egor...@intercall.com> wrote:
> Jake McDermott wrote in message <6kt1dn$9...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> >three or four different mags after it's original release. My grief is not
> >so much in an artist using one image in two mags...but there are a couple
> >folks out there who are getting excessive. I don't like every other mag
> >or whatnot looking like every other mag I just bought. Literally.
>
> I have the same problem with a lot of fanzines - that's why I don't
> purchase fanzines anymore. But honestly, the only person I noticed doing
> this a lot was Terrie Smith. Every fanzine I seemed to pick up in the
> past had almost identical pieces from her - unless the pieces were so
> repeated it seemed like her multiple contributions were all the same.
> You would think that an artist who brags on her own webpage that she has
> over 800+ images to choose from would be able to contribute to fanzines
> without repeating anything. But hey, I'm just being bitter. >:(
Actually, Terrie is generally pretty selective in what she sends to
fanzines for pictures. She makes a note of what picture went to what
fanzine. There isn't REALLY that much duplication - although there is
some, yes. You have to consider that when Terrie sends a letter out to
most people, she generally sticks in a photocopy or two with it - and she
doesn't make note of who got what photocopy when doing this. If she sent
the same wolf picture to several fanzine publishers, and they all liked
this wolf picture, then yes, it can wind up in several fanzines.
She doesn't make a particular fanzine clear the pictures they are
planning on using with her; if she sent them something, they can use it.
There are some that say "DO NOT REPRODUCE", that's pretty much the only
restriction (those being a rough draft from an upcoming comic or
something...)
And yes, well over 800 pieces in the last few years. Does she
cross-index them all with all the various fanzine publishers to prevent
duplication? No...
Dan Pankratz
> _Woah_. I could have _sworn_ that it had been bid up to $170 by friday evening.
> I was looking dead at the thing, and I rerember you standing there, talking
> to some other SMOF-type and being happy that everything of yours had been bid on.
> This is too wierd... does anybody else rerember seeing this piece with a
> three-figure bid on it, or was I just on crack?
Eric says I must have been on crack. Oh well. ;P
-Dan
(Disclaimer: he didn't _really_ say I was on crack, mind you...)
Karl Meyer
Dan Pankratz <rans...@au-au.extern.ucsd.edu> wrote:
: At AAC last, in the charity auction, I bought an original by Conrad Wong called
: Nanimwe. (Drop _dead_ gorgeous color pencils, and a coyote femme to boot!...
: the brightest jewel of my collection...) At CF9 he was selling a color photocopy
: of Nanimwe in the art auction, which got bid up to $75... did it bother me?
: Not at all.
: At CF9, I bought an original by Ginger/J. Willard called "Otter Ballet"
: in the art auction. A month after CF I check out her web page and see that she is
: selling color prints of Otter Ballet, and that anyone can download the gif or
: whatever for free. Does _this_ bother me? Not at all.
That sort of thing doesn't bother me either. When I buy an original I
expect that prints of it might be made available unless otherwise stated.
I buy originals of pieces I like when possible because they are usually
the highest quality form of the work in question and tend to show more
detail than even a good quality laser copy especially when texture plays a
part in the piece. I wouldn't generally mind if prints were made of a
piece I commisioned since I'd find it gratifying that somebody else might
enjoy art that had at least some input from me as well as the artist.
Certainly if I wanted full exclusive rights to a piece or wanted
unlimitted reproduction rights I'd likely expect to pay more. The only
case where I could see getting upset is if a piece were sold as a limitted
edition and then more than the set number were made. Whether having
limitted edition color pieces that have sold out appear in fanzines is
sort of a grey area. In most cases I've seen, the fanzine images are much
inferior black and white copies of color prints and there would be no way
to mistake one of those for an original. I certainly feel that if scans of
limitted edition pieces are to appear on the net that they should be of
low enough resolution that no similar confusion could be caused by any
printouts made of said prints.
Pelzig
Daphne Lage wrote:
> Lemme give you an example as to what *my* expectations are -
>
> Someone had gotten in contact with me concerning a commission. They wanted
> me to design a logo and mascot for a band and they stated to me that they
> were planning to do merchandising with this logo and mascot. Knowing that I
> specifically state on my commission rules that I reserve the right to
> reproduce any commissioned image as I see fit, they told me that they had
> wanted *full* rights to the images they had wanted me to do. They didn't
> want me to do *anything* with these pieces.
This begs me asking a question which has loitered in my head for a bit.
Sometime back, when I was sending handling the Copyright forms for
artists, there was mention that the person who asks the artist to do a
commission, that artist doesn't hold the rights to the piece, but the
commissioner does. I've not kept up on Copyright law of late...maybe
this has changed...but, this is the policy I work by. Any commission I
do for someone, if it is their character or fursona, that work is
theirs. I myself don't feel right publishing, printing, posting, or what
have you, their characters without their say-so...its like someone
posting photographs of me or of my work without letting me know so I can
have input as to how they are displayed. All of the work on my FTP site
on Velan, all those of characters outside of my own, are posted with the
commissionee's permission...not my own volition.
So...as a hypothetical question:
If I ask of an artist, who desires to retain the rights to the piece
they do for me, to illustrate characters I own the rights to, does this
mean that the work, featuring my characters, can be used as the artist
who does the piece sees fit without my consent?
Just tossing out something which has lingered in the back of my head.
TCASF,
Ed "Pelzig" Dyer
Knechtschaft Studio
Dr. Cat
Pelzig (pel...@mailhost.accesscom.net) wrote:
: So...as a hypothetical question:
: If I ask of an artist, who desires to retain the rights to the piece
: they do for me, to illustrate characters I own the rights to, does this
: mean that the work, featuring my characters, can be used as the artist
: who does the piece sees fit without my consent?
I believe that, by default, if a piece of work is created that contains
copyrightable stuff owned by two different people (in this case, the
character being copyrighted by you, and the actual specific rendering of
it being copyrighted by the artist), then neither of you can distribute
it without the permission of the other. And any third party would have
to get permission from both of you.
Of course any contract signed by the two of you at the time you make the
arrangement could expressly grant or deny either or both of you various
rights regarding the copying and publication of the work. If that's
likely to become important to either of you, then you should come to some
agreement about it before any actual drawing commences. :X)
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: If I'm wrong, somebody can, like, correct me and stuff.)
Allen Kitchen
Daphne Lage <egor...@intercall.com> wrote in article
<6kt5gv$h8o$1...@rat.org>...
> That was also one of the reasons I stopped contributing to fanzines
myself
> unfortunately - I was beginning to repeat images so much, even *I* was
> getting fed up with them. I just couldn't keep up with all of the
fanzines
> that were asking for my contributions and being in just one fanzine
doesn't
> do much for promotion. So in the end, I just dropped them all. Now, I
don't
> even have the time to keep track of *any* fanzines. Hooray for Real Life.
:P
Try being in only 2 or 3 fanzines milady. That way the fanzines stand
apart
somewhat, and you don't "Recycle" over and over again. Honestly though,
I haven't been buried by recycles. I think I have one TS image that was
repeated.
Granted my budget keeps me from buying everything out there.
You know, I've wondered why I haven't seen your artwork in a zine. I
understand
a bit better now.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
http://www.blkbox.com/~osprey/
Doug Winger
In article <35728B...@mailhost.accesscom.net>,
pel...@mailhost.accesscom.net wrote:
> This begs me asking a question which has loitered in my head for a bit.
> Sometime back, when I was sending handling the Copyright forms for
> artists, there was mention that the person who asks the artist to do a
> commission, that artist doesn't hold the rights to the piece, but the
> commissioner does. I've not kept up on Copyright law of late...maybe
> this has changed...but, this is the policy I work by. Any commission I
> do for someone, if it is their character or fursona, that work is
> theirs. I myself don't feel right publishing, printing, posting, or what
> have you, their characters without their say-so...its like someone
> posting photographs of me or of my work without letting me know so I can
> have input as to how they are displayed. All of the work on my FTP site
> on Velan, all those of characters outside of my own, are posted with the
> commissionee's permission...not my own volition.
>
> So...as a hypothetical question:
>
> If I ask of an artist, who desires to retain the rights to the piece
> they do for me, to illustrate characters I own the rights to, does this
> mean that the work, featuring my characters, can be used as the artist
> who does the piece sees fit without my consent?
>
> Just tossing out something which has lingered in the back of my head.
>
>
> TCASF,
>
> Ed "Pelzig" Dyer
> Knechtschaft Studio
It's the difference between 'work for hire' and someone commissioning a
piece of artwork. In work for hire, you are implicitly surrendering all
rights to your employer. Most places even have the necessary legal form on
tap, and require your signature beforehand.
Commissioned works, on the other hand, are essentially 'You're paying
for a piece of art; I retain all rights to content unless otherwise agreed
upon beforehand.'
The difference is quite sharp, as can be seen when one compares the
prices charged for commissions in the world of the Fen and commercial
rates, where you're selling all the rights. That $25 dollar piece wold be
a LOT more expensive if you wanted the full rights to it.
When of someone else's copyrighted character is involved, and if the
work is work for hire, they already own all rights, as you've surrendered
them. However, if the work is a commission, they have implicitly
surrendered their right of use to the character to you _for that piece
alone._ They retain all rights to the character, excepting for that image,
which implicitly copyrighted by the artist.
It is wise to seek their permission beforehand, and even wiser to make
certain that both parties are aware of the terms the work will be
performed under, as it lessens any chance of 'I thought _I_ had that
right?!' arising later. However, unless you're specifically operating
under the terms of work for hire, all copyrights on the work are implictly
the artist's.
- Doug
- 'Of course squirrels love me; they think I'm nuts.'
Fhaolan
On Sun, 31 May 1998 21:00:35 -0400, "Daphne Lage"
<egor...@intercall.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Okay, here's my question to you... What did you expect when you paid $25 for
>that original? This is not being asked sarcastically. I would really like to
>know - what *did* you think you were going to get for $25 other than an
>original piece?
Fhaolan grins, "Okay, me own take on this, though it may be wanderin'
a bit from tha topic. Sorry abou' tha'. Here's me 'scale' for artwork.
All prices are in American dollars."
$10 Black & white print/laserprint
$15 Colour print/laserprint
$25 Black & white original or any type print with basic mounting
$50 Colour original or any print with basic framing
$100 Colour original with elaborate framing
$200 + I have yet to see furry art worth this to me.
"Tha point I have with this, is tha' when I say 'original' I *mean*
original. I dinn'a mean tha' first laserprint. I mean it has tae have
somethin' tha' makes it unique. Hand-inked, or painted, or somethin'
other than photocopier/laserprinter work. Mind ye, if they used older
methods o' printin', like actual printin' presses an tha' like, tha'
price o' prints would go up. I was fooled only once, an' tha was by a
rather interestin' piece o' Wookie's. It was a verra special form o'
ink-jet printer tha' used on canvas. Looked like someone was painting
a picture so it *looked* like it came ou' o' a printer."
-Fhaolan, Celtic Wuf! (Oh, and I know the prices may seem low relative
to what I'll pay for 'regular' art, but the honest truth is? I can get
furry art cheaper than I can get 'regular' art. And if I want really
cheap art, I do it myself.)
Glen Wooten
Pelzig <pel...@mailhost.accesscom.net> wrote:
>
> This begs me asking a question which has loitered in my head for a bit.
> Sometime back, when I was sending handling the Copyright forms for
> artists, there was mention that the person who asks the artist to do a
> commission, that artist doesn't hold the rights to the piece, but the
> commissioner does. I've not kept up on Copyright law of late...maybe
> this has changed...but, this is the policy I work by. Any commission I
> do for someone, if it is their character or fursona, that work is
> theirs. I myself don't feel right publishing, printing, posting, or what
> have you, their characters without their say-so...its like someone
> posting photographs of me or of my work without letting me know so I can
> have input as to how they are displayed. All of the work on my FTP site
> on Velan, all those of characters outside of my own, are posted with the
> commissionee's permission...not my own volition.
>
> So...as a hypothetical question:
>
> If I ask of an artist, who desires to retain the rights to the piece
> they do for me, to illustrate characters I own the rights to, does this
> mean that the work, featuring my characters, can be used as the artist
> who does the piece sees fit without my consent?
Here you have the question of how much input the artist has. In Terrie's
case...
If someone says "Do me a picture with 2 wolves playing basketball", then
it's up to Terrie to design the characters and the setting - she has the
rights to that picture. They have the rights to the original.
If someone says "Do me a picture of my 2 wolf characters playing
basketball", then she is using someone else's copyrighted characters -
she then has the rights to the ARTWORK, they have the rights to the
CONTENT. Neither one can publish publically (that is in a fanzine, on a
web page, or make prints for sale, etc...) without the permission of the
other.
If the commissioner want the artist to create the entire thing in his/her
mind, then the artist legally retains all publishing rights. If they
want the artist to use specific copyright protected elements, then there
is a potential split in publishing rights, and both sides must agree to
any potential publishing. The artist cannot do it without permission,
because elements in the work belong to someone else. The commissioner
cannot do it without permission, because they did not create the finished
work.
It's all a matter of ratios - and any prior agreements, of course...
Pelzig
Glen Wooten wrote:
>
> Pelzig <pel...@mailhost.accesscom.net> wrote:
> >
> > So...as a hypothetical question:
> >
> > If I ask of an artist, who desires to retain the rights to the piece
> > they do for me, to illustrate characters I own the rights to, does this
> > mean that the work, featuring my characters, can be used as the artist
> > who does the piece sees fit without my consent?
> Here you have the question of how much input the artist has. In Terrie's
> case...
> If someone says "Do me a picture with 2 wolves playing basketball", then
> it's up to Terrie to design the characters and the setting - she has the
> rights to that picture. They have the rights to the original.
Got ya.
> If someone says "Do me a picture of my 2 wolf characters playing
> basketball", then she is using someone else's copyrighted characters -
> she then has the rights to the ARTWORK, they have the rights to the
> CONTENT. Neither one can publish publically (that is in a fanzine, on a
> web page, or make prints for sale, etc...) without the permission of the
> other.
Ahhh...this clarifies quite well. In fact, I've run into this problem of
who can publish what as a year or so ago, on two occasions, some
contribs to the fanzines I edit ( still do, you all...they are just on
hold for the moment ) had two pieces of someone else's characters. One
of them, I actually recognized that character as I myself had done a set
of commissions for the same person. I had the Email address for the
person and asked his permission to run the piece, which he granted. The
other, I dropped the ball and ran the piece and got an Email from the
owner of the character asking why it was run in the 'zine. After a few
Emails back and forth, I offered to retract using the piece. In the end,
the person didn't mind it being there but wanted to be informed it was
being used. So, now, I carefully check any contribs I get to see if they
are someone elses characters and if I cannot find contact information to
ask the owner if I can run it, I don't run it.
> If the commissioner want the artist to create the entire thing in his/her
> mind, then the artist legally retains all publishing rights. If they
> want the artist to use specific copyright protected elements, then there
> is a potential split in publishing rights, and both sides must agree to
> any potential publishing. The artist cannot do it without permission,
> because elements in the work belong to someone else. The commissioner
> cannot do it without permission, because they did not create the finished
> work.
> It's all a matter of ratios - and any prior agreements, of course...
Thanks again for clearing it up!
eblu...@yahoo.com
Yo...
If there's anything I've learned in my 12 years in the fandom (not to
mention my six months on the "information pit-stop"), it's that errors and
misstatements are the fodder for rumor frenzies (doubly so here...) In order
to prevent the flame-wars that are sure to follow such errors, I offer my
apologies to Terrie Smith and Glen Wooten.
Earlier today, I was reminded that the piece that followed "Drzava" in
the CF9 art auction was not, in actuality, a work of Mrs. Smith. I regret
any insult or grievance caused by this error, as I had no wish to have caused
such. Neither did I wish to impune the quality of her work, or that of her
prints.
Nevertheless, The point stands- I can remember many times when a
photocopied piece of pornography has gone for prices well into the three
digit range. It happened at this last CF, and I have no reson to believe it
won't happen again.
Believe it or not, I have no real beef against capitalism (I LOVES $!),
and if that's what the market wants, well, I can't deliver. Therefore, I'm
still kinda leery of putting stuff up for sale in the AAC show...
Doodles
On Mon, 01 Jun 1998 21:22:56 GMT, eblu...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Believe it or not, I have no real beef against capitalism (I LOVES $!),
>and if that's what the market wants, well, I can't deliver. Therefore, I'm
>still kinda leery of putting stuff up for sale in the AAC show..
Wellll...
Considering that Albany has a different policy in reguards to
erotic/non-erotic works, it's possible you may do _better_ there than
you might at Albany.
You could always try selling a lesser work in the show and just
displaying the more elaborate ones. All up to you, of course.
Unca Spooge, always interested in seeing more Blumrich. He can't
afford it, but he likes to see it...
Richard Chandler
I dunno Glen, I saw a lot of things in "From A to Yarf!" that had been in
Gallery. Of course, I saw some duplication from nearly every artist who had
been in both Gallery and Yarf! in that book.
Taral Wayne actually keeps an index card file for every piece he sends out to
'zines, and all of his pics are numbered, and often titled too. You don't
have to index everything sent out in the past, but starting a new master file
would be a good idea.
The opinion is split. Some of my readers get Gallery because they love
Terrie's art, others ignore her stuff because it's so ubiquitous.
--
"I don't believe in Guns."
"I Do! I've actually seen one!"
"Yeah, I hear that the Government has secret warehouses where they keep them."
--
"Yeah, I've got ADD, you wanna make something of.... oooh, cool. Look!"
Mel. White
Pelzig (pel...@mailhost.accesscom.net) wrote:
: Daphne Lage wrote:
: So...as a hypothetical question:
: If I ask of an artist, who desires to retain the rights to the piece
: they do for me, to illustrate characters I own the rights to, does this
: mean that the work, featuring my characters, can be used as the artist
: who does the piece sees fit without my consent?
------------
If they ask to retain the rights to the piece, and if you've signed the
rights to that piece over to them, then yes, they may do as they like
with that piece (not with your characters).
If no agreement is made, then the commission-er owns the character and
the artist owns the image but the artist can't publish the image without
the permission of the person who's had the commission done. And the one
who had the commission done can't publish the piece (send it to YARF
or photocopy it (lots of copy shops will ask about this) without the
artist's permission.
Twisty, eh?
That's the way it works, though.
--
m...@netcom.com
========================================================================
Fed up with Spammers? *** Here's some useful resources:
http://www.cauce.org http://ga.to/mmf http://www.abuse.net
Report chain letters/pyramid schemes to u...@ftc.gov The Federal Trade
Commission is now helping shut down scammers and spammers.
Pelzig
mau...@gte.net (Richard Chandler) wrote:
>Taral Wayne actually keeps an index card file for every piece he >sends out to
'zines, and all of his pics are numbered, and often >titled too. You don't
have to index everything sent out in the past, >but starting a new master file
would be a good idea.
Thats a pretty cool idea. Personally, I get around the 'recycle' by doing
something original for each and every publication I send stuff too. I think,
since 1994, I 'recycled' one piece, reprinting in my own 'zine a piece I did
originally for another. If you see something twice...its probably a 'reprint'
or 'Best of...." collection book ( like the furBALL zine which reprinted my
work again ).
Problem is...when I get commission work or RL gets in the way, my 'zine
appearances have been few and far between, especially for 1998 so far and I
can't bring myself to dig through my 600+ illustration portfolio to send out
old stuff even though 99.9% of all of them have only seen print one time.
TCASF,
Ed "Pelzig" Dyer who has way too many ISPs, OSPs, and Email addresses. ;)
Micole Khemarrica
eblu...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Believe it or not, I have no real beef against capitalism (I LOVES $!),
> and if that's what the market wants, well, I can't deliver. Therefore, I'm
> still kinda leery of putting stuff up for sale in the AAC show...
Uhm, Eric? If you are leery about being in a show with pornographic art,
then you _should_ attend AAC's show! Our rules are vastly different than
the 'usual' con artshow. While we are not banishing explicit art from
the con, we _are_ limiting content in the Art Show. And in spite of
occassional grumblings from last year, _most_ of the attending artists
actually enjoyed the "post-it-note censorship" requirement. It allowed
someone to put a 'questionable' piece into the art show without
disrupting the overall show rating. Those of us who do a wide range of
'rated' art could present the 'clean' or 'slightly dirty' stuff in the
main Art Show, and have the 'really dirty' stuff in the Adult Art Show
which was a separate location.
ermine (Artist Liason for AAC Art Show)
[Undo the Knot to Reply.]
Allen Kitchen
eblu...@yahoo.com wrote in article <6kv63g$2ch$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> Believe it or not, I have no real beef against capitalism (I LOVES
$!),
> and if that's what the market wants, well, I can't deliver. Therefore,
I'm
> still kinda leery of putting stuff up for sale in the AAC show...
I like your work myself. Saw some in AJA4. Not much into erotica,
and I like to buy stuff I can show mundane friends without them
running screaming into the night. But, you won't make ANY of that
money you loves :) if you don't put a few piccys out for con-goers to
buy.
Sigh. I'm really starting to regret not going to AAC. maybe next year.
Maybe if I water the budget it'll grow.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
Karl Meyer
eblu...@yahoo.com wrote:
: Nevertheless, The point stands- I can remember many times when a
: photocopied piece of pornography has gone for prices well into the three
: digit range. It happened at this last CF, and I have no reson to believe it
: won't happen again.
Yes it happened and will continue to. No disrespect ment towards the
artist, but there is a certain ringtailed character who seems to have a
rather large cult following. I suspect a badly done coloring book image of
said character would sell as long as naughty bits were showing. There
isn't much you can do about that other than chalk it up to certain fans'
letting their hormones help with their bidding. I suppose if I were an
artist and that happened I'd likely want to take advantage of it. Doing
art in any fan genre isn't generally the most lucrative area of artistic
endevor. Keep in mind that many more pieces not in the NC-17 section of
the art show got 3 digit bids than those in it.
: Believe it or not, I have no real beef against capitalism (I LOVES $!),
: and if that's what the market wants, well, I can't deliver. Therefore, I'm
: still kinda leery of putting stuff up for sale in the AAC show...
You'd certainly have less competition with adult pieces there since there
are some rules on content that are rather stricter than at CF. It's a
smaller art show as well so there is less competition for $$$. CF has an
art show the size of a WorldCon with maybe 1/50 (or less) of the number of
people. The amazing thing to me is how much of the art there actually
sells at all much less gets multiple bids. Give the AAC art show a try.
Yealurowluro abuse
On <Jun 01 17:06>, Mel. White (m...@netcom.com) wrote;
MW>If no agreement is made, then the commission-er owns the
MW>character and the artist owns the image but the artist can't
MW>publish the image without the permission of the person who's had
MW>the commission done. And the one who had the commission done can't
MW>publish the piece (send it to YARF or photocopy it (lots of copy
MW>shops will ask about this) without the
MW>artist's permission.
MW>Twisty, eh?
MW>
MW>That's the way it works, though.
I've always figured it was safest to assume that I'm buying physical
possession of the original, and specifically negotiate for any other rights
I may want.
William Haskell
Glen Wooten wrote:
>
snip
> And yes, well over 800 pieces in the last few years. Does she
> cross-index them all with all the various fanzine publishers to prevent
> duplication? No...
>
What I'd like to know is how she manages to come up with titles for
*all* those illos that are distinctive enough to make any kind of sense
to her when looking back over them any time afterwards...
Glen Wooten
She can identify them all by sight or description (how, I have no
idea...) As for titles, some are by description, some are by name (and
she has many "baby namer" books & software programs to help in that...)
Richard...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6ksjfd$25i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,> too cheezed off about that, per se. Yeah, the illo took weeks of hand-
> cramping labor, and I expected to get a tad more. In the end, I figured
> "well, someone got a good deal, and at least it sold, period." However,
> immediately after DRZAVA sold, A Terrie Smith "hand colored print
> (PHOTOCOPY)" sold for over 500 dollars. I forget exactly what the subject of
> Mrs. Smith's Illo was, but if memory serves me correctly, it was some
> onanistic hermaphrodite picture- well executed, but a photocopied piece of
> porno nonetheless.
> months of work being sold for peanuts, while the fans poured out literally
> thousands of dollars for base pornography and marker-colored photocopies. As
> Auntie Shrew pointed out so eloquently in NIMH: "Cast not pearls before
> swine."
> To this end, it is extremely unlikely that I will have artwork for sale
> in the AAC art show. I might put up a few NFS pieces, but I've pretty much
> given up trying to sell work to a fandom that seems incapable of rising above
> the lowest common denominator. If you want to buy my artwork, I'm available
> for commissions. Just e-mail me at
>
> eblu...@hotmail.com
>
> And we'll talk.
I can certainly sympathize with your situation. Many is the time I've spent
weeks on a piece, only to have it just sit there, or go for a pittance, while
people scramble over each other to try and get their hands on some silly
little doodle that my have take all of five minutes to throw together, and
sometimes I do wonder, "Why bother?". However, I think you mighht be a little
premature here. My impression of last year's AAC art show was that most of
the works that sold were non-erotic, and that quality was the primary factor
that got people to open their wallets. Nothing is quaranteed, of course, but
personally, I think if ever there was a place to show your work, it would be
AAC.
Richard Bartrop
writer/artist "Zaibatsu Tears"