The concept of intellectual property

Discuss the VALIANT comics, characters, and collecting.
PLEASE DO NOT REVEAL SPOILER INFORMATION IN YOUR TOPIC TITLE.

Moderators: Daniel Jackson, greg

Post Reply
User avatar
lorddunlow
I think you might be a closeted Canadian.
I think you might be a closeted Canadian.
Posts: 13552
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:51:31 pm
The concept of intellectual property

Post by lorddunlow »

This may not be the best place to put this topic (and greg and move it if he sees fit), but it's the most visible and I'm mostly talking about it because of the DMG/VEI debacle.

I find IP issues to be very problematic. I understand why we have IP laws/rights, but they often seem to get in the way of creativity in general. I don't think there is an easy fix either. 2 things I think would improve the situation though are:

1. stop allowing resetting of the clock (and actual changing of the laws in the US) for public domain; stop letting a creator's estate from keeping a copyright active in perpetuity.

2. Ease up and expand "fair use" policies. I read about why Night of the Living Dead is public domain (it entered as soon as it was released due to a distribution snafu) and how that spurred the massive Romero zombie genre that resulted in things like The Walking Dead. Had Romero retained the rights, none of that stuff would exist due to fear of litigation for IP entanglements.

Jim Shooter and the group of creators he amassed created the characters we love from Valiant. They should be credited every time they are used. But I think there should be freedom to work with those ideas without the worry of lawsuits.

Again, this is problematic because I don't think just ripping off someone's actual creative labor is a good thing, but our current system stifles creativity and collaboration. Art is derivative in nature.

It's quite funny to me that Disney built his movie empire on public domain works, but every time Steamboat Willie should be hitting public domain, the US public domain laws change to make sure it stays a protected Disney property.

I also find it funny that all the artists I follow on Twitter complain when their work is stolen and used without credit, but how many of those same artists sell stuff on Etsy and make prints to sell at shows that showcase their takes on Disney characters or the IP of other companies?

There is also now a problem with creator owned works vs work for hire companies. Nobody wants to give their characters they created with their own mind and hands to a corporation, so they save the good ideas for Image and similar. It's rare to find the creator that puts their best ideas into a Marvel or DC comic. That's not good because Marvel and DC have the biggest audience.

It's hard to sort out what is best. Any opinions? Really interested to hear from the creative-types on here.
*SQUEE* your science, I have a machine gun.

User avatar
kevinbastos
I felt 'used car salesman' kind of dirty.
I felt 'used car salesman' kind of dirty.
Posts: 3868
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:34:06 pm
Valiant fan since: 1992
Favorite character: Rai
Favorite title: Quantum & Woody
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:
Re: The concept of intellectual property

Post by kevinbastos »

lorddunlow wrote: It's quite funny to me that Disney built his movie empire on public domain works, but every time Steamboat Willie should be hitting public domain, the US public domain laws change to make sure it stays a protected Disney property.
This is all you need to know.

Golden rule.

Those with gold make the rule.
Hey, look! I have a podcast!
And a Website!
http://www.valiantnewuniverse.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


If I win an argument, it doesn't mean I'm right. It means I'm a better arguer.

In addition, I'm right.

User avatar
possumgrease
I had the 1,000,000th post on this board and all I got was this lousy custom ranking.
I had the 1,000,000th post on this board and all I got was this lousy custom ranking.
Posts: 1175
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:35:29 pm
Valiant fan since: 1992
Favorite writer: Joshua Dysart
Location: Alabama
Re: The concept of intellectual property

Post by possumgrease »

Patent laws are in the same steamboat. You try to balance the protections of the government (which incentivizes creation) with the utility to the masses.

Does having a 75 year or 100 year copyright really get the creative juices flowing? Probably not.

Does a pharmaceutical company need a 20 year patent on a drug to recoup its expenses? Maybe not.

I have other questions, but it's time to take lunch.

SuperMage
Completely ruined the ending of Last Jedi: The Force Reloaded of the Green Gables 8 -- This Time, It's Really Really Personal (In Space).
Completely ruined the ending of Last Jedi: The Force Reloaded of the Green Gables 8 -- This Time, It's Really Really Personal (In Space).
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:08:41 pm
Valiant fan since: 2013
Favorite character: Animalia
Favorite title: X-O Manowar
Location: Hollywood, Florida
Re: The concept of intellectual property

Post by SuperMage »

lorddunlow wrote:This may not be the best place to put this topic (and greg and move it if he sees fit), but it's the most visible and I'm mostly talking about it because of the DMG/VEI debacle.

I find IP issues to be very problematic. I understand why we have IP laws/rights, but they often seem to get in the way of creativity in general. I don't think there is an easy fix either. 2 things I think would improve the situation though are:

1. stop allowing resetting of the clock (and actual changing of the laws in the US) for public domain; stop letting a creator's estate from keeping a copyright active in perpetuity.

2. Ease up and expand "fair use" policies. I read about why Night of the Living Dead is public domain (it entered as soon as it was released due to a distribution snafu) and how that spurred the massive Romero zombie genre that resulted in things like The Walking Dead. Had Romero retained the rights, none of that stuff would exist due to fear of litigation for IP entanglements.

Jim Shooter and the group of creators he amassed created the characters we love from Valiant. They should be credited every time they are used. But I think there should be freedom to work with those ideas without the worry of lawsuits.

Again, this is problematic because I don't think just ripping off someone's actual creative labor is a good thing, but our current system stifles creativity and collaboration. Art is derivative in nature.

It's quite funny to me that Disney built his movie empire on public domain works, but every time Steamboat Willie should be hitting public domain, the US public domain laws change to make sure it stays a protected Disney property.
I agree with your two points. There should be a fixed time limit for how long something is protected by copyright. The lifespan of the creator would be ideal. Fair use is very ill defined. Its a huge grey area in copyright law. The background fairy tale characters in Shrek are protected by both fair use and public domain. They're clearly riffs on the Disney version of those characters, but they clearly parody those characters. Return of the Living Dead was the film that popularized the idea that zombies eat brains. Various films, and t.v. shows reference this zombie rule without needing to be give the original film credit.

There's another thing to take into consideration. Valiant characters aren't that old. They've only been around for 25 years. Even if we stopped resetting the clock, should that really effect characters whose creators are all still alive and kicking? Shouldn't copyright at least last for the duration of the creator's lifespan?
lorddunlow wrote:I also find it funny that all the artists I follow on Twitter complain when their work is stolen and used without credit, but how many of those same artists sell stuff on Etsy and make prints to sell at shows that showcase their takes on Disney characters or the IP of other companies?
Personally I think anyone should be allowed to draw anything. As long as they credit the original creators it's fine for them to create their own takes on other characters. The issue of selling art commissions of established characters is separate thing entirely. Once money gets involved you encounter a lot of grey areas involving fair use.
Tom Siddell wrote:Drawing and selling other peoples' characters might be accepted in the amateur artist community, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. Up to now people have just been drawing characters from larger studios who have better things to do than go after an individual selling a sketch of Spiderman.

The problem is that now, when self-owned work like webcomics are becoming popular, people looking to make a buck see these properties as the same as any mainstream property. I.e, the creator is a faceless millionaire and they won't mind some little guy trying to scrape a living. Unfortunately, I'm not a faceless millionaire, and neither is someone like Andrew Hussie, or anyone else that puts their own work online.

The taking of someone else's property, even intellectual property, is fundamentally unethical and the rules are there to (believe it or not) protect the creator of a work from being ripped off. You may as well be selling photos of my family without my permission. A company couldn't do it without going through legitimate, legal channels, paying for licenses, obtaining permission, splitting profits, etc., so why should that not apply to someone who feels they want to make some quick money? Just because we are all small time here doesn't mean I have to be okay with people selling my stuff.

It's become "accepted" because this is what you see on Tumblr and DeviantArt; talented artists who don't want to put the effort into creating their own properties, so they take something that already exists and sell it. The amount of work is not the issue here, it's the fact that they are selling something that was never theirs in the first place.
This is the opinion of one independent artist who feels it's irrelevant whether someone is selling commissions of well known characters or independent creations. Either way its a violation of IP law. Let's say an independent artist could earn $300 doing an original design of one of their characters and selling it to a buyer. How can that artist capitalize on their creation if 50 other artists are using their original ideas to make a quick buck. The only difference between an independent creator, and Disney is the size of their business. Shouldn't the same rules apply to both? Should it be acceptable to profit on property that doesn't actually belong to you? Technically it's illegal, regardless of who's doing it. The difference is Disney is rich enough to afford to not care.
lorddunlow wrote: There is also now a problem with creator owned works vs work for hire companies. Nobody wants to give their characters they created with their own mind and hands to a corporation, so they save the good ideas for Image and similar. It's rare to find the creator that puts their best ideas into a Marvel or DC comic. That's not good because Marvel and DC have the biggest audience.

It's hard to sort out what is best. Any opinions? Really interested to hear from the creative-types on here.
I've spent the past two years working on a webcomic I plan to publish later this year, and your question pretty much covered a lot of things I've considered as I developed it. I have no interest in creating characters I'm genuinely attached to only to willingly give the rights away to some big corporation. Imagine that I've spent years plotting out a storyline, designing characters, and developing scripts. Do you think I'd be happy if DC/Marvel kicked me off at the fifth issue, and give the series to a different writer only for it to be canceled at the twelfth issue. I'd rather any creations that I'm emotionally invested in than risk having them ripped away from me before I've finished telling my story.

IP laws aren't perfect, but the idea is that they force creators to come up with new ideas. The Valiant Universe itself exist because of IP laws. Jim Shooter wanted to continue publishing books about Marvel characters. He didn't own the rights, so instead he created a universe of characters INSPIRED by Marvel comics. This lead all of the original creations we've come to love. Dinesh couldn't purchase the rights to the Gold Key Three so this lead to the creation of characters INSPIRED by the Gold Key Three.

IP laws are flawed. They favor big corporations over small creators. Corporations use IP laws to try maintain their hold on decades old ideas, and they use reboots to try maintain public interest over the generations. More and more media companies are becoming part of larger monopolies. Disney buys Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar, and now Fox. Disney has no need to create new ideas or characters when they can just buy the rights to someone else's creation. Why create their own original space opera when they can just buy the rights to Star Wars? Can I buy the rights to Star Wars? No. So if I wanted to write a space opera I would be forced to create my own universe and IP. Disney on the other hand has no need to be original. They can just buy everyone else's ideas, and flood the market with them. They can then keep those properties alive indefinitely.

IP laws are a mess. The biggest issue with IP laws is that they favor corporations. They're a series of rules that are constantly rewritten and redefined to provide protection to multi-billion dollar corporations. These protections aren't meant to encourage creators to create new ideas anymore. These protections are designed to allow media companies to continue beating the same dead horse from now until Judgement Day. The incentive to create new ideas is challenged by the threat that anything new that's created will simply be acquired by another company. When ideas are seen as nothing more than property it prevents any meaningful or genuine art from being created.

User avatar
WrathOfArmstrong
Get those scissors away from my coupons
Get those scissors away from my coupons
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:43:01 pm
Valiant fan since: April 2017
Favorite character: Aric
Favorite title: Wrath of Eternal Warrior
Favorite writer: Venditte
Favorite artist: Juan Jose Ryp
Re: The concept of intellectual property

Post by WrathOfArmstrong »

Great topic lorddunlow.

Ethically, I believe whoever created it deserves credit and compensation. Unfortunately, with work for hire you are being asked to make something for someone else. It's the same as if you build a house for someone... a contractor doesn't get to stay at all the houses he built and he doesn't get royalties when you sell the house again in a booming market (not yet anyway).

That being the case, it's the creator who has to understand what he/she is giving up. But when people need money they'll sign that dotted line--which is what most of the Big Two is. It's like giving away the winning lottery ticket--a painful life lesson.

The case for doing a great job at the Big Two is important. Scott Snyder could do just about anything after his New 52 Batman run. It made him a brand. His original work will sell better upon release than having to hope for word of mouth.

Going forward, I don't think IPs should be treated like houses, the longevity is near infinite. These characters have become brands that'll live longer than most people and if you create such a thing that is going to feed/pay so many--you deserve your cut/reward/bonus. I don't fault DC or Marvel for not expecting that in the 60s and 70s. But being a decent human being should mean recognizing those that fattened your wallet.
1. stop allowing resetting of the clock (and actual changing of the laws in the US) for public domain; stop letting a creator's estate from keeping a copyright active in perpetuity.
As for the case of Steamboat Willie, I think it goes beyond the powers of a great legal team--that animation is part of the Disney brand and so long as Disney is operating, it should not be in public domain--so please stop wasting tax payers dollars on extensions, the law just needs to be defined in english. You can't use an old Coca Cola logo and slap it on your soda just because its copyright expired and Coke is using a totally different logo. These works are part of that brand.

Disney has to protect its brand. But that doesn't mean they can't decide to sell Steamboat Willie if they need to fund reshoots on the next Star Wars film--then the new owner would have less of a claim that it is about brand identity and it'd revert to public domain when the latest extension expires.

As far as estates go, as long as they are actively selling a title I think they should own it. But I'm not sure how fair it is for 10 generations to profit off one guy's work. That's a weird debate, but if I ever created something I'd at least want my children and their children to get as free a ride in life as possible (you know hard work is for suckers). But personally, I'd rather have the work accessible than to vanish because no one was taking care of it.
2. Ease up and expand "fair use" policies. I read about why Night of the Living Dead is public domain (it entered as soon as it was released due to a distribution snafu) and how that spurred the massive Romero zombie genre that resulted in things like The Walking Dead. Had Romero retained the rights, none of that stuff would exist due to fear of litigation for IP entanglements.
I think I read a great John Carpenter quote within the last couple years that was him complaining about how Romero is getting ripped off that all that stuff (walking dead was perhaps named) was just them remaking Romero's flick. That never should've happened back then. I don't agree with having to file a copyright. If you can prove you made it that should be enough. It's kind of like not writing your name on you lunch in the company fridge. It's yours. If someone takes it, they're a *SQUEE*.

I'd define 'fair use' as anything that does not use the original in order to compete with, damage, or replace the original product. i.e. quoting or referencing... and homage are okay. Satire is a part of human nature so I think parody has its place even if it could be considered damaging.

I remember a music major in college telling me--every note has been played, it's all about presentation now. And there are plenty that would say that about characters and stories as well. Maybe that's where we're finally getting. Maybe it should just be a competition of who can do it better...

I don't understand how people get away with selling fan merchandise on Etsy or Slash Fiction or even Fan Films. I think its more of a matter of the IP owners not making the effort to go after everyone that violates it. But I think creating those things is fine as long as you are not profiting on it.

I think it's wrong to try to make a profit off of something someone else created. It's one thing to be hired by the rights owner. But at the same time, I love when my favorite comic artists do renditions of other characters--and I'd gladly pay them for that work butI do think they would lose in court if they were sued..

The world is weird. That's why Meryl Streep is trademarking her name. But as humans (or Americans?) I think we all feel entitled to make every cent that we're owed.

and apologies to all who read that... I had an energy drink at lunch...and I did try to delete a lot the other tangents...

User avatar
lorddunlow
I think you might be a closeted Canadian.
I think you might be a closeted Canadian.
Posts: 13552
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:51:31 pm
Re: The concept of intellectual property

Post by lorddunlow »

Patents were brought up which brings another facet to the discussion to IP rights. Should people be able to monopolize ideas?

Take the example of manned air flight and the Wright brothers. They are credited with the invention of manned heavier-than-air flight. There are, however, several people who lay claim to this invention, and in fact 1000s of people were working on this invention for years. Every single person, including the Wright brothers built their inventions on the ideas and innovations of the brilliant minds before them. This is how invention works.

The patent wars that ensued ended up stalling innovation in aviation to the point that US planes were inferior to European planes during the first World War. The government had to step in to mediate the issue and ultimately take control of aviation innovation as a result.

This principle extends to scientific progress in general. Modern science is held back substantially by the "publish or perish" paradigm. If you are a researcher, you must publish in journals with data that supports your hypothesis. You then get credit for being the person that found that relationship or unique finding or whatever. The big issue with this is lack of collaboration. Take children's cancer research. I've worked at St. Jude, one of the premier centers of research for childhood cancers. Their research is literally locked up with layers of security the government probably would be in awe of. No one can share data without permission. All because they want the discovery to be theirs so they get their research cited in more papers, which helps them with bonuses, tenure, getting other jobs, grants, money, etc. The problem is there are 3 major groups in the US researching these diseases. Each group protects data like this. How often do you think two groups of researchers are wasting resources (time, money, patients, medicines) tyring to tackle a problem that the third group tackled 2 years ago, but aren't yet ready to publish that data? That ends up in children suffering to further this idea of credit and reward for ideas.

Imagine if every time you bought a tire for your car a portion of the cost went to every person who had an idea that led to the creation of that tire going all the way back to when the first wheel was invented? It's ridiculous. The most ridiculous part is that nobody invented the wheel. The wheel is a simple machine. It was an idea that was "discovered" by many peoples at the same (or different) times independently.
*SQUEE* your science, I have a machine gun.

User avatar
possumgrease
I had the 1,000,000th post on this board and all I got was this lousy custom ranking.
I had the 1,000,000th post on this board and all I got was this lousy custom ranking.
Posts: 1175
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:35:29 pm
Valiant fan since: 1992
Favorite writer: Joshua Dysart
Location: Alabama
Re: The concept of intellectual property

Post by possumgrease »

lorddunlow wrote: It was an idea that was "discovered" by many peoples at the same (or different) times independently.
Agree on most everything you said (and I'm not making light of it), but I first realized this phenomena at about age 6 when Hasbro stole the "Sharkticons" name and likeness from me and my brother. We invented those from whole cloth while exploring the above-ground swimming pool. Then a year or so later, our creations show up in the movie and we never got a royalty check.

Now I realize though that, like the wheel or a fulcrum, "Sharkticons" are just something that exist almost naturally when certain data points are aligned. Which does in some ways question whether the government should protect Hasbro's trademark or copyright. Statutes and case law says they're protected, but should they be?

User avatar
greg
The admin around here must be getting old and soft.
The admin around here must be getting old and soft.
Posts: 22861
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 9:39:27 am
Valiant fan since: Rai #0
Favorite character: Depends on title
Favorite title: Depends on writer
Favorite writer: Depends on artist
Favorite artist: Depends on character
Location: Indoors
Contact:
Re: The concept of intellectual property

Post by greg »

WrathOfArmstrong wrote:I remember a music major in college telling me--every note has been played, it's all about presentation now.
The perfect time for an intermission (some language might be disturbing to listeners):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
lorddunlow
I think you might be a closeted Canadian.
I think you might be a closeted Canadian.
Posts: 13552
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:51:31 pm
Re: The concept of intellectual property

Post by lorddunlow »

This reminds me of this article https://music.avclub.com/why-hook-by-bl ... 1798232765" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sent from my HTC U Ultra using Tapatalk
*SQUEE* your science, I have a machine gun.

User avatar
ilzuccone
5318008
5318008
Posts: 3705
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:03:17 pm
Valiant fan since: VEI
Re: The concept of intellectual property

Post by ilzuccone »

lorddunlow wrote: Jim Shooter and the group of creators he amassed created the characters we love from Valiant. They should be credited every time they are used. But I think there should be freedom to work with those ideas without the worry of lawsuits.
don't forget that these large companies see the artists as barnacles. it's not a good idea for artist's/ owner's of IP to give an inch.
lorddunlow wrote: I also find it funny that all the artists I follow on Twitter complain when their work is stolen and used without credit, but how many of those same artists sell stuff on Etsy and make prints to sell at shows that showcase their takes on Disney characters or the IP of other companies?
I see where you are going with this and I agree for the most part. I know a guy who had a painting stolen and used on a book cover. He fought it and won. It only took 10 years of his life to win too! facepalm when an artist makes 200-3000$ at a con selling art they made with an IP is a lot different than Disney stealing an artist's work and making money off of it.
lorddunlow wrote: There is also now a problem with creator owned works vs work for hire companies. Nobody wants to give their characters they created with their own mind and hands to a corporation, so they save the good ideas for Image and similar. It's rare to find the creator that puts their best ideas into a Marvel or DC comic. That's not good because Marvel and DC have the biggest audience.
A lot of creatives won't give their best stuff to companies like Marvel or DC because they will out right ruin it. there are so many levels of non creative execs That give notes on how to be creative. there are also lawyers, a group called standards and practices, lower level execs that need to prove their worth will give a big pile of notes, and i've personally seen an exec's secretary give notes on a project...

no real arguments to the points you made just a few observations from the artist side.

User avatar
lorddunlow
I think you might be a closeted Canadian.
I think you might be a closeted Canadian.
Posts: 13552
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:51:31 pm
Re: The concept of intellectual property

Post by lorddunlow »

ilzuccone wrote:
lorddunlow wrote: Jim Shooter and the group of creators he amassed created the characters we love from Valiant. They should be credited every time they are used. But I think there should be freedom to work with those ideas without the worry of lawsuits.
don't forget that these large companies see the artists as barnacles. it's not a good idea for artist's/ owner's of IP to give an inch.
lorddunlow wrote: I also find it funny that all the artists I follow on Twitter complain when their work is stolen and used without credit, but how many of those same artists sell stuff on Etsy and make prints to sell at shows that showcase their takes on Disney characters or the IP of other companies?
I see where you are going with this and I agree for the most part. I know a guy who had a painting stolen and used on a book cover. He fought it and won. It only took 10 years of his life to win too! facepalm when an artist makes 200-3000$ at a con selling art they made with an IP is a lot different than Disney stealing an artist's work and making money off of it.
lorddunlow wrote: There is also now a problem with creator owned works vs work for hire companies. Nobody wants to give their characters they created with their own mind and hands to a corporation, so they save the good ideas for Image and similar. It's rare to find the creator that puts their best ideas into a Marvel or DC comic. That's not good because Marvel and DC have the biggest audience.
A lot of creatives won't give their best stuff to companies like Marvel or DC because they will out right ruin it. there are so many levels of non creative execs That give notes on how to be creative. there are also lawyers, a group called standards and practices, lower level execs that need to prove their worth will give a big pile of notes, and i've personally seen an exec's secretary give notes on a project...

no real arguments to the points you made just a few observations from the artist side.
All the things you bring up are why I say it's a difficult issue. IP laws overwhelmingly protect large corporations because they have the money and lawyers to fight the cases and win. Like you pointed out with your friend: it takes years of their lives. They can't just throw money at a lawyer to take care of it.

The problem is if you take away IP law then the corporations still win because then they can take everyone else's creations and make much more money with it than the creators...

It's difficult for sure.

Sent from my HTC U Ultra using Tapatalk
*SQUEE* your science, I have a machine gun.

User avatar
The Dirt Gang
Just jumpin' through time arcs, that's all.
Just jumpin' through time arcs, that's all.
Posts: 1505
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:33:31 am
Valiant fan since: VH1 Unity #1
Favorite writer: Shooter/Dysart
Favorite artist: BWS
Location: Astral Plane
Contact:
Re: The concept of intellectual property

Post by The Dirt Gang »

This is an interesting topic and one that sort of hits close to home.

My parents were artists and I grew up in a community of artists. Some background, my dad was trained as a painter but ended up becoming a photojournalist beginning in the 60s. He was pretty successful into the 70s working for publications like Life, Esquire, Rolling Stone and a number of others. He worked on films and did a few album covers. In the late 70s, he moved to central FL and while still working as a photographer, he became known locally as an impresario. He sort of galvanized the local art scene and they created elaborate art parties, shows and a short lived publication. He ended up dying penniless as he was horrible at the business side of things and the work dried up late in his life.

We've inherited his archive and have struggled for roughly 15 years to make something happen with it. Fortunately, my dad was work-for-hire and retained the rights to all his photographs. We've managed to license out an image here and there over the years but it doesn't pay much and definitely doesn't cover what we've put in to manage the archive. Photos for album covers are sold in perpetuity.

My dad was never about money. He was all about the process of creating especially creating with others. The money just let him keep creating. He really didn't care how people used the work as long as they weren't making a big profit and he was seeing little of that profit. My siblings and I sort of carrying on his ethos. It's most important to us that our dad's art live on. We feel conflicted because we didn't create any of this yet we have the potential to profit from it. We really just don't want to see someone else profit significantly and we don't see return. If we never break even but my dad gets some books published and his name becomes more recognized we'd be happy. I think my dad would also be happy with that. Of course, I'm sure he'd love to know that his art carried on and provide for his kids and grandkids but, again, we don't expect that especially since we just got lucky enough to be born to my parents. We are working for it in some respect but not in the way my dad did.

My experience around artists is that most just want to be able to live a normal life. They aren't in it to get rich and know that it's an uphill climb. Of course, they don't want to see anyone else prosper from their work when they can barely get by. For instance, I've seen some of my dad's photos in a book by Rem Koolhas and in that recent Netflix Errol Morris series, "Wormwood" both times uncredited. However, I know in both cases there is very little money to be made especially in publishing. We'd rather than images be out there and hopefully they might lead someone to my dad's work.

I'd say my dad and my family are for more of an open source society but that takes a lot of altruism and egalitarianism. I'd like to think we as a society could get there. This all comes back to the other golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you".

I do like the California law that allows fine artists to get a percentage of the sales when their works sell years after they first sold it. This way if an artist sells a work for $10k and years later it sells for $150k; then the artist since a small percentage.

Damn, I realize this is sort of rambling but I've never tried to put this into words but hope it lends to the discussion and doesn't just bore everyone. I'm happy to offer clarification if some of this doesn't make sense.
Multum In Parvo

User avatar
geocarr
Those responsible for those remarks have been sacked.
Those responsible for those remarks have been sacked.
Posts: 4368
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:07:56 pm
Valiant fan since: 1992
Favorite character: Vincent the Goat!
Favorite title: All of them!
Location: Woods of Southeastern NC
Re: The concept of intellectual property

Post by geocarr »

The Dirt Gang wrote:Damn, I realize this is sort of rambling but I've never tried to put this into words but hope it lends to the discussion and doesn't just bore everyone. I'm happy to offer clarification if some of this doesn't make sense.
Not at all. Thanks for the post. I've enjoyed reading yours and other's ideas on this topic in this thread.
***Support your local farmers!***

User avatar
lorddunlow
I think you might be a closeted Canadian.
I think you might be a closeted Canadian.
Posts: 13552
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:51:31 pm
Re: The concept of intellectual property

Post by lorddunlow »

The Dirt Gang wrote: I'd say my dad and my family are for more of an open source society but that takes a lot of altruism and egalitarianism. I'd like to think we as a society could get there. This all comes back to the other golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you".
I'm the same way, but unfortunately it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the bunch.

The best system in my opinion would be a true patron system. Every artist gets some people to pay for them to live comfortably while they make art. Again, this tends to cater to the rich, who then make the decisions on which artists get to thrive.

Nothing seems perfect...
*SQUEE* your science, I have a machine gun.

User avatar
possumgrease
I had the 1,000,000th post on this board and all I got was this lousy custom ranking.
I had the 1,000,000th post on this board and all I got was this lousy custom ranking.
Posts: 1175
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:35:29 pm
Valiant fan since: 1992
Favorite writer: Joshua Dysart
Location: Alabama
Re: The concept of intellectual property

Post by possumgrease »

The Dirt Gang wrote:I do like the California law that allows fine artists to get a percentage of the sales when their works sell years after they first sold it. This way if an artist sells a work for $10k and years later it sells for $150k; then the artist [gets] a small percentage.
I have never heard of such a law, but it seems very strange.

Do you like this law because it applies to art and art is should be treated differently than other products? Rephrased, should this law law only apply to art. If I build and sell a house for $100k, should I receive a percentage for each time the house sells for more than $100k? If I paint a portrait and sell it for $10k to Joe Blow and then down the road Joe can't sell it for more than a dollar, should I, the artist, have to disgorge a percentage of the profits? [admittedly, fat cat artists are not the problem, but I find the law very strange.]

Even if applying the golden rule standard, it gets murky very quickly, right? If I sell something, I do not expect to get a portion back from subsequent sales. If art is created for art's sake, then it's not about the money until it is about the money but then doesn't art just become another product in which case why should art get special treatment apply the artist to get a portion of profit from subsequent sales?

User avatar
superman-prime
scratch 1 for the coog guys
scratch 1 for the coog guys
Posts: 23252
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:27:32 am
Location: phx az (east valley)
Re: The concept of intellectual property

Post by superman-prime »

i mean its kinda cool but whats the odds a prticular work of art will be sold in ca stay in ca and be sold again in the same state

this seems likea kinkaid law for when he was poor and his works are now worth crazy money (even more with his passing )

User avatar
lorddunlow
I think you might be a closeted Canadian.
I think you might be a closeted Canadian.
Posts: 13552
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:51:31 pm
Re: The concept of intellectual property

Post by lorddunlow »

superman-prime wrote:i mean its kinda cool but whats the odds a prticular work of art will be sold in ca stay in ca and be sold again in the same state

this seems likea kinkaid law for when he was poor and his works are now worth crazy money (even more with his passing )
California requires everything to have a sign that says it causes cancer. They're crazy.

Sent from my HTC U Ultra using Tapatalk
*SQUEE* your science, I have a machine gun.

User avatar
superman-prime
scratch 1 for the coog guys
scratch 1 for the coog guys
Posts: 23252
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:27:32 am
Location: phx az (east valley)
Re: The concept of intellectual property

Post by superman-prime »

unless your giving someone a dirty needle then san fran will get you a clean one


Post Reply