Yes, it is done when the NFT is created.
Here is some info on NFTs :
https://ethereum.org/en/nft/
Miki A
On 05/02/2021 8:14 AM Malcolm Bourne <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Makes sense - thanks Bill
Sent from a galaxy far far away
> > On 2 May 2021, at 11:57, Bill Morrison
<bill.littlegreenman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Malcolm,
>
From what I’ve been told, the artist can chose to be paid certain
percentages of future sales, so it’s an option and not inherent.
Sent from 1947
> > > On May 2, 2021, at 5:09 AM, Ken Penders
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> >
Malcolm,>
I don't see why writers can't sell NFTs of their scripts
based on what I know, which isn't much. Elliot S! Maggin himself was
asking me this very question the other day and I didn't have an answer. I
guess if one can view the artwork, one can view a script. I just don't
know if the experience is similar to reading a book on a Kindle or a Nook
which I've done many times.
As I said, NFTs & comics are the new WIld West.
Here's another thought for the discussion. The younger
generation just isn't into collecting the way my generation was/is. They
don't believe in collecting entire runs of a series. Rather, they focus
solely on key issues. Likewise, NFTs could become their way of collecting
art as opposed to purchasing actual pages and covers many current owners
have in their collections, thus beginning a trend where only certain
pages have value or are deemed collectible.
I didn't think much of CDC-graded books when they first hit
the market, thinking that was an absurd concept, yet here we are, seeing
people pay enormous sums for a book they can't even read if they wish to
preserve it's so-called value. It's absolute madness and contrary to how
I got into comics in the first place. NFTs could be the next domino to
shake up the marketplace.
Ken Penders
On Sunday, May 2, 2021, 01:41:24 AM PDT, Malcolm Bourne
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks Ken for the interesting read. I’m learning from this,
which is good.
And writers can sell NFTs of their/our scripts/manuscripts
etc, right? I think there are a couple exploring that already.
Malcolm
Sent from a galaxy far far away
> > > > On 2 May 2021, at 09:08, Ken Penders
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
Jim,> >
I personally think you, Miki, Malcolm and others on
this list are pretty much on the same page. When I first heard about
NFTs, I was having a hard time wrapping my brain around that concept. I
still am. However, in all honesty, I myself am planning to do a couple
of Sonic & Knuckles NFTs. Why? I look it at as the equivalent of a trip
to Vegas, only with the potential of better odds. When I've gone to a
casino, I gone with the expectation I will lose. The best I can hope
for is to break even. And if I come out ahead, I figure that a win at
someone else's expense.
My inclination is that the whole thing is a Ponzi
scheme, but I come away feeling I'm the wrong generation to make sense
of this thing after talking to my son and nephew, both of whom invest
in cryptocurrencies and can explain the workings of the whole system
far better than I, especially my nephew, who's in charge of his firm's
IT department.
As Miki stated, it was my understanding also that Neal
was producing brand new illustrations of Batman and other characters as
NFTs, but if my understanding is correct, I came away with the
impression Neal was offering the buyers of the NFTs the original hard
copy original as well, which struck me as a better value than simply
purchasing the NFT. (If my assumption is wrong, someone please correct
me.)
I believe Malcolm is correct the companies will find it
next to impossible to stop the artists from selling NFTs, especially in
this era where major Marvel & DC characters are licensed and marketed
in every form imaginable with one gaping exception - the work artists
produce and sell to their audience. If they aren't stopping artists
from selling convention sketches, commissioned art, limited edition
prints plus original published & unpublished work, why should NFTs be
treated any different?
Keep in mind over the past 8 decades comic publishers
have always done what suited their interests. They didn't consider
returning art to the artists until the 1970's when the potential for
paying taxes on an acquired asset raised it's head. Then the companies
couldn't begin returning the work fast enough (except in the case of
Jack Kirby). When the US Copyright Office sought input as they were
working to revise the Copyright Act, comic book publishers were the one
notable exception who choose not to participate in the process. As a
result, every major case involving comic creators resulted in a loss or
settlement to the creators from the publishers. The notable exception
to this list is Dan DeCarlo, who had an idiot for a lawyer and a
typical artist mentality that ill-served him.
Lawyers for both DC & Marvel today understand what a
quagmire they're in as a result of industry practices from the 1930's
to the early 1990's, when 7 Marvel artists left to form Image. That was
a wake-up call to the industry and pretty much when everything started
getting contractually nailed down more so than anytime previously. The
standard contract I ever saw prior to that was 1 or 2 pages. It wasn't
until the early 1990's I began receiving contracts 7 pages or more in
length, with Archie being the notable exception of no issuance of
contracts.
Paul Levitz understood the problems DC faced,
especially with the original creators from the Golden Age, and took
action by quietly approaching creators with offers, most of whom
accepted DC's terms as they couldn't believe DC would offer anything in
the first place. Paul even worked out a deal with Jerry Siegel and his
estate, only to see the Warner lawyers blow up that deal because they
thought it too generous, thus triggering a multi-year court battle
which resulted in the MAN OF STEEL film to preserve DC's rights to
SUPERMAN, which they could've lost had there been no film, and an
eventual settlement to the Siegel Estate based on (what I was told) the
original deal Paul originally worked out. It was reported at least $26
million dollars was sitting in an escrow account waiting to be released
to the Siegel heirs.
So, yeah, I view the NFTs as the Wild West where the
comics industry is concerned, only the artists stand a better than even
chance of coming out ahead.
Ken Penders
On Sunday, May 2, 2021, 12:05:54 AM PDT, Malcolm Bourne
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto: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
mailto: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
mailto: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
mailto:comicartl-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
<comicartl-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:comicartl-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;> on behalf of Ken
Penders <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;>
Sent: Friday, April 30,
2021 5:38 PM
To:
comicartl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx mailto:comicartl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
<comicartl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx mailto:comicartl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;>
Cc: comic-art@xxxxxxxxx
mailto:comic-art@xxxxxxxxx ;<comic-art@xxxxxxxxx
mailto: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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
