Today's postings

  1. [Baren 33852] Re: Woodblock Print Manuals and Books. (David Harrison)
  2. [Baren 33851] Re: Woodblock Print Manuals and Books. (Diane Cutter)
  3. [Baren 33853] Re: Cairn and Iraq exchanges update ("Maria Arango")
  4. [Baren 33854] Re: Baren Digest (old) V40 #3994 ("Marilynn Smith")
  5. [Baren 33855] Artists' Rights (ArtfulCarol #
  6. [Baren 33856] Re: Woodblock Print Manuals and Books. (Sharri LaPierre)
  7. [Baren 33857] Re: New Baren Digest (Text) V40 #3994 (Aug 3, 2007) ("Patricia B. Phare-Camp")
  8. [Baren 33858] Re: Woodblock Print Manuals and Books. (Charles Morgan)
  9. [Baren 33859] Exchange #30 Exhibition extended (Diane Cutter)
  10. [Baren 33860] Re: Secondary market sales. ("Mark Mason")
Member image

Message 1
From: David Harrison
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:24:52 +0100
Subject: [Baren 33852] Re: Woodblock Print Manuals and Books.
Send Message: To this poster

I think, as it stands in Europe, that it applies to the physical artwork
itself. Certainly the UK regs look that way. Repros would be covered by
existing copyright law.
Member image

Message 2
From: Diane Cutter
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 07:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Baren 33851] Re: Woodblock Print Manuals and Books.
Send Message: To this poster

Thanks for the link, Mark. Yes, I also have the 'Hand of the Craftsman.' And even better, my parents own one of his prints (a Taos one that is not in the books), which I admire every time I visit them in New Mexico. I was surprised that he also did puppets.

Member image

Message 1
From: "Maria Arango"
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 07:47:28 -0700
Subject: [Baren 33853] Re: Cairn and Iraq exchanges update
Send Message: To this poster

I received your block about a week ago in great shape! Thank you, Murilo.

I will be writing an email to the people that have not sent blocks yet or
have not contacted me at all.

Happy carving!

Maria Arango
Member image

Message 2
From: "Marilynn Smith"
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 08:33:59 -0700
Subject: [Baren 33854] Re: Baren Digest (old) V40 #3994
Send Message: To this poster

Dan made that statement. I always thought that an artist holds the
copyright to their work??? Therefor printing copies and selling for a
profit would be against the copyright laws. Unless the work copied no
longer applies to the copyright laws.

Member image

Message 3
From: ArtfulCarol #
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 12:08:45 EDT
Subject: [Baren 33855] Artists' Rights
Send Message: To this poster

Regarding artists' rights in the US I did a lot of necessary legal reading
about art years ago, when my art was involved in a Federal case (We won
$10,000. Mine was a copyright case and the defendant was from the Hartford
Insurance Company! Artists' Magazine covered the story in an Editor's Letter.
This much I say-- if and when you ever have a case, and I hope you don't,
you have to have a good experienced lawyer.

I don't know if woodblock prints would be protected with resale royalties.
The laws have limited applicability to graphic artists.
Every state has different laws about resales of original art. In the '90's
California's statue was the only one that guaranteed the artist resale
royalties from subsequent sales of their work. Under that statute, even if the
work was resold 3 times, the artist had the right to a percentage of the
profits from the sales. In other states, the resale royalties can easily be
incorporated into a contract with the buyer.

At one time I had the experience of having a piece of original art, my
watercolor, auctioned off in a museum. The winning bidder was a gallery owner. A
while later, I found out that she had sold it. When I called to ask her to
whom it sold and what the price was she refused to tell me. End of story. I
did not follow up.

Upbeat stories far outweigh the negatives .
What pleasure we have in our woodblock printing!!!
Carol Lyons
Member image

Message 4
From: Sharri LaPierre
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 10:10:26 -0700
Subject: [Baren 33856] Re: Woodblock Print Manuals and Books.
Send Message: To this poster

Not pretending to read the wigg-ed ones minds, but it seems to me
they were trying to equate visual art with he other arts. Film
makers, writers, playwrites, performers, writers and musicians
receive royalties every time their work is used, played, sold. In
their behalf, I think they were trying to afford we visual people the
same source of income. US law says that I continue to own that
"image" for as long as I live and 75 years after I go. Since it is
such an integral part of me, I would love to be paid for it as long
as I live. Personally, I think this law is a very nice thought, but
totally unenforceable, therefore I will not be holding my breath
until the check arrives. Still, it will be interesting to see how
much that first Larri Shlapierre sells for - I wonder if it will even
come close to a Marles Chorgan, who incidentally is one of my
favorite artists!


Cheers ~
Member image

Message 5
From: "Patricia B. Phare-Camp"
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:48:21 -0700
Subject: [Baren 33857] Re: New Baren Digest (Text) V40 #3994 (Aug 3, 2007)
Send Message: To this poster

Dave, you are lucky that you get a fair price for your work. The law is
international law which the US is subject to, and I believe Japan as
well. Anyway this law was intended to protect artists. Soooooo many
great artists cannot make a living from sale their art, in the past
galleries and collectors would buy up an artist's works real cheap and
then rake in the money in the secondary market while the artist lived in
poverty or had t take a second job to make a meager living. Many great
and famous artists watched works that they received hundreds for later
sell for thousands. Tell me is this fair? Now granted the percentage
is not real big, its only about 4-5% but this is some, if small, measure
of protection for the creative talent that struggled and worked to
produce a work of art. Sadly, unless the artist hires a lawyer this law
is not always enforced. I would check with a business lawyer about what
to do with a work that the artist is undetermined. Personally I would
put the funds aside for a year or two in case the artist later came

Something else that artists may not be aware of is that if you don't
have a receipt for a work of art you purchased the artists estate may
take that work from you upon the artists death. This is simply a good
estate lawyer doing his job of looking out for the artists family. So
artists when you sell or gift an artwork include that certificate of
authenticity and keep a record of who you gave or sold works to. Take
care or your patrons.
Member image

Message 6
From: Charles Morgan
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:52:46 -0700
Subject: [Baren 33858] Re: Woodblock Print Manuals and Books.
Send Message: To this poster

I will pass your most kind words along to Marles ... I am sure he
will be extremely pleased.

Cheers .... Charles
Member image

Message 7
From: Diane Cutter
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 11:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Baren 33859] Exchange #30 Exhibition extended
Send Message: To this poster

For those of you in the past Exchange #30... The Director of the art center has asked the exhibition of my work and of the Baren Exchange #30 remain hung another month plus. So if those of you in that exchange keep track for curriculum vitae, here's the updated information:

Vamos a Grabar! (Let's Print!)
5 June 2007 to 14 September 2007
Centro de Arte Angel "Lito" Pena
Humacao, Puerto Rico

I will be giving more 'charlas' (little demo/talks) when school starts the end of August and into September. The demos earlier this summer got a lot of positive reaction from the charming size of the exchange... lots of oohs and ahs, especially of kittens, bumblebees, and other small animals of some of the Bareners. And everyone was amazed at the printmaking process. I could see a lot of minds opening up to new creative ways of working.

Member image

Message 8
From: "Mark Mason"
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 19:49:40 +0100
Subject: [Baren 33860] Re: Secondary market sales.
Send Message: To this poster

"I may be wrong here, but I think the original intent was meant for
situations like this:
I buy a series of Dave's prints, have them turned into a calendar and
and print 5 million copies for sale." ... Unquote.

Dan, I think you are referring to copyright protection, and not royalty payments on secondary sales which is different.
Yes, using Dave as an example ('hope you don't mind Dave), even though Dave sells his prints to people, he doesn't sell them the copyright (ie: the right to copy) that image. That remains with Dave, and his descendants for the length of time the copyright law states in the country of origin, or until Dave decides to sell the copyright onto a third party.

I hope all the questions regarding royalty payments for secondary markets were rhetorical as I'm in no way an expert on the subject. It was just the sight of one of Dave's prints on eBay that reminded me of the situation in Europe and I thought it'd be interesting to hear other people's views on the subject.

A lot of an item's value is based on it's rarity, an oil painting is a one-off, a Ford Escort isn't. Model T Fords in their 100's of 1000's devaluated on resale until so many of them were scrapped or junked that collectors were eager to hold onto the few of them that were left and their value went up.

I'm not saying I agree completely with the law. I think it was thought of with the best intentions to allow up and coming artists to benefit from any increases in the value of their earlier work, but the artwork I think has to have been sold originally for over 1000 ($2000) in order to qualify, which puts the royalties scheme out of the reach of most artists at the start of their career who could never reach 1000 per sale.

I do think there is a little bit of greed and envy behind those who lobbied for this law. Executors of established artist's estates have the most to benefit from this as a lot of artwork only increases in value after the artist's death, and they would have seen dealers and collectors making fortunes on work that their ancestor had produced and they greedily wanted a cut of the profit.

I'm much more inclined to Dave's ethos that you charge the correct rate for the sale, and then that's it. That's what I do for all the animation and illustration I produce. Writers, musicians and actors have always received royalties for animation shows although only in the last few years have animators been allowed to receive them when their work is repeated on terrestrial channels in the UK. Because it's there I claim it. ( I'd be a fool not too.) Copyright protection is a vitally important matter for all artists though, but that's a whole different subject.

If the purchaser sees the value of the artwork increase due to the churning of art market vagaries then he may feel pleased. You would like to think that art should be purchased solely for the love of it, and that arbitrary changes in financial value shouldn't alter your view of the work.

Price doesn't tell you how good a piece of art is, it just tells you how much someone is prepared to pay for it.

I hope this isn't too far off subject for the Forum, it is about the business of selling and protecting artwork and prints.