The issues are linked though - if they had no value, nobody would bother about
trademark/copyright questions. The comic companies - so far at least - have
been largely silent or acquiescent about non-financial use of digital imagery
of their copyrighted characters. Even Disney don’t go after you for sending
someone a scan of a drawing of Mickey Mouse. And original comic art itself was
generally considered mostly or completely valueless for decades.
The precedent - as Neal is reliant on, I think - of allowing /legally agreeing
artists to have their art back and by definition selling it, could likely make
it hard-to-impossible for the companies to stop the artists applying the same
to NFTs.
In fact the companies themselves are missing a trick, by not producing and
selling their own NFTs. Personally I still have no interest in paying fpr a
digital collectible and time will tell if this lasts. the environmental effects
weigh heavily on me too but if that could be solved then I see nothing
inherently wrong with the idea. It’s just not for me. But maybe younger
collectors more immersed in the digital world, will see it differently.
(Although it feels ironic that this entire list abs the whole process of
looking at art on CAF and anywhere else online, is digital. Not the same I
realise. This is not an NfT. But a version of it potentially could be - right?)
This also creates a potential market for artists who mostly work digitally
anyway. Maybe?
Malcolm
Sent from a galaxy far far away
On 2 May 2021, at 00:00, Mark Nevins <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
“Can you expand on why you think this is a big deal?” is the most cogent
sentence so far in this entire thread.
Thank you, Jim.
Mark Nevins
Sent from my iPhone
On May 1, 2021, at 17:38, Jim Ottaviani <comicart@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It looks like he's selling originals of published pages he did as work for
hire. That puts him on rock-solid ground, or so it seems to me. I have to
say, it doesn’t seem revolutionary in any way, especially if the original
was done the old-fashioned way with pen, ink, and paper.
Of course, if that’s the case then what you get by paying for an NFT as well
as the original page is beyond me, and it seems foolish and faddish (again,
to me) to do so.
If the original pages were done purely digitally, then maybe it does get
interesting legally, though. I have no clue.
Ken, if you have the time can you please expand on why you think this is a
big deal?
Thanks,
Jim
On May 1, 2021, at 01:19, Ken Penders (Redacted sender "kenpenders" for
DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Please help me out here, Jason. I'm trying to figure out if your comment
was ill-informed of the legal issues involved that have more to do with
arguments presented before a Judge that go beyond copyrights & trademarks,
or a case of "the spice must flow" when fans are upset when creators fight
for their rights.
A rational argument can be made that DC profited handsomely from Neal's
work in ways beyond what Neal was compensated for. This will then be
followed by "the spice must flow" crowd claiming that Neal was
work-for-hire, totally ignoring the fact that Neal could apply to reclaim
the copyrights for his art as stipulated in the Copyright Act of 1976 that
applies to work created prior to January 1, 1978. Should Neal do this, he
would be in much better position in negotiating for royalties with DC than
simply having to accept what DC tosses at him, especially as Neal has
illustrated some of DC's most significant works of the 1970's.
It all comes down to what one is willing to fight for.
Ken Penders
On Friday, April 30, 2021, 07:19:05 PM PDT, Jason Wood <jbwood83@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Neal is going to be demonstrably smacked down on this one. IMHO.
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 10:05 PM Ken Penders <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
This is exactly the point. Neal is on much firmer ground and he knows it.
Ken Penders
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 30, 2021, at 6:10 PM, WASIELEWSKI <fedres@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Neal was very clear in the article, staking his claim to original art
rights which he owns and is selling via NFT. The companies own
reproduction rights as he states. He seems to be the best guy in the world
to do this. He is selling the OA, which he owns, with an accompanying NFT.
Yes he seems to be saying "here I am, come get me if you want."
Who thinks DC for one comes and gets him, requesting a stop to the sale?
On April 30, 2021 at 8:54 PM Ken Penders <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Having fought Archie and come away with my entire body of copyrighted
work intact, all I will say is that NONE of the comic book publishers is
on solid ground were they to fight this.
I will simply point to the Archie v DeCarlo case as the precedent
established that helped in encouraging a settlement in my favor.
Ken Penders
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 30, 2021, at 3:44 PM, Robert Berman
<rberman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"I was waiting for this, and Neal didn’t disappoint me. This is his shot
across both DC & Marvel’s bows on behalf of creators."
Or... this could be the kicking of the hornet's nest that forces Marvel
and DC to crack down on not only NFTs but also physical commissions in
order to protect their trademarks, after decades of benign neglect.
From: comicartl-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <comicartl-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Ken Penders <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 5:38 PM
To: comicartl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <comicartl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: comic-art@xxxxxxxxx <comic-art@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [comicart-l] Neal Adams Gets It
I was waiting for this, and Neal didn’t disappoint me. This is his shot
across both DC & Marvel’s bows on behalf of creators.
Neal obviously recognized that if he gave in to Marvel & DC over NFTs,
it wouldn’t be long before commissioned art, convention sketches and
even the sale of original art would be subject to terms dictated by the
major companies after decades of looking the other way.
While some on this list may be dismissive of the NFT issue, I’ve
believed it has major ramifications for creators and the original art
market were DC & Marvel to start clamping down, as they’d have no choice
but to do so in order to have a chance to prevail in court regarding
NFTs.
https://decrypt.co/69481/legendary-comics-artist-neal-adams-launches-nft-auction-featuring-batman
Ken Penders
Sent from my iPhone
