Sideshow Premium Art Prints

[OrangeCrush]

Originally Posted by Canadaguy705

I agree Lau owns the rights and is probably allowed to sell smaller, lesser quality versions at cons etc...

But it's not like these prints were already done and SS went to Lau and asked for the rights to make statues and prints off of them.

SS went to Lau and commissioned him to create the artwork for them, which i think would give SS more say on what Lau could do.

Again, what does Sideshow mean when they say "Exclusive, limited edition prints?" I'm sure we can all guess but doesn't SS owe the customer what the definition of "exclusive" is since that's how they sell all their prints?

Either way, hopefully Lau will write you back ASAP and settle this.

If Lau does still own the rights to that artwork, which I absolutely 100% believe to be the case, he's definitely not limited to producing smaller or lesser quality prints. The only thing he would be limited from doing is creating a print that was 100% identical to Sideshow's print. If he still owes the rights, he can produce prints of any size and quality that he desires. He can even produce a print that is the exact same size (18x24) and even uses the exact same paper that Sideshow uses. He would just have to make some sort of change to the artwork or border that made it distinguishable from Sideshow's print. That can be done by changing the artwork in some way, changing the colors, or even just changing the design of the border of the print. So ultimately Stanley could produce a 100% identical print on 100% identical paper and just put an Ink Ink Collectibles logo in the bottom right corner of the border, and he would be perfectly within his rights. No way would he sign a contract that limited him to smaller and lesser quality prints. He might have signed a timed exclusivity contract, which makes it so Stanley is unable to produce any additional editions for a certain amount of time. If he did, the time frame would most likely be in the 6 months to a year range.

As I have explained before on this forum, when it comes to making multiple editions, the only rule is that they have to be distinguishable from one another and I can guarantee you that an artist like Lau would never in a million years sign a contract that required him to produce smaller and lesser quality prints than Sideshow. The idea in itself is actually insulting. I know I would be insulted if one of my clients tried getting me to sign that kind of contract, guaranteeing all of my print editions to be inferior to theirs. Honestly, a contract like that wouldn't even be enforceable considering a lot dealing with overall quality is highly subjective in nature.

As for the commission, just go to any artist that offers commissions and read the details. It says flat out that the commission is not owned by the buyer and cannot be duplicated and sold as prints. The rights to the artwork remain with the artist. Many artists do offer the ability to buy the image outright, but no price is ever given. Artists that offer to sell the rights to the image outright always say to get in contact with them to discuss the overall price and price can vary dramatically based on the commission being made.

If you know anything about commissions, you know they get more and more expensive the higher the quality. Not to mention the number of characters in the commission, if you want a background, if you want full color or just B&W, etc. The minute Sideshow decided they were going to start a premium limited edition print line, many of which were going to coincide with statue releases, its highly likely they immediately had an alternate contract drawn up particularly for artists that they wanted to commission to do prints along with their statues. That contract would give Sideshow the ability to sell a single limited edition print line for each commission. That kind of contract would be FAR FAR cheaper than a contract that gave Sideshow all rights to the commission being produced.

The prints that Lau did for Sideshow were extremely high in quality and were full background color commissions. I guarantee the cost of Sideshow buying the rights to those commissions outright would cost at least $15,000 to $20,0000, possibly a lot more. Lau knows that so there is no way he would sign a contract that would automatically give the rights to those images to Sideshow without being properly compensated. And again, it just makes no sense for Sideshow to spend that king of money to buy the rights to the images outright when all they were planning on doing is producing a single limited edition print. It just doesn't add up, not unless Sideshow's goal was to make as little as possible on each print or unless they plan to pull an Aspen Comics move and produce a whole bunch of editions for each image. That is the only way buying the image outright would make any sense. Of course, that is still a terrible idea as then you have collectors getting pissed off that Sideshow is producing so many editions for each image.

As for "Exclusive limited edition prints", that just means that these 18x24 prints were exclusive to Sideshow. While Sideshow was selling those prints, those images were not available anywhere else in print form. I have seen that kind of wording used a thousand times over in this market. Once the prints sell out or a certain amount of time has passed (if it was a timed exclusivity as opposed to them being exclusive until the prints sold out), that exclusivity clause goes away.

You see the same thing in the video game market. Just look at Rise of the Tomb Raider for Xbox One. MS purchased a 1 year exclusivity deal with Crystal Dynamics for that game. During that time, MS is able to say that its an Xbox One exclusive. Once that one year has passed, that exclusivity clause disappears and its no longer exclusive. So again, Sideshow using the word exclusive only suggests that while Sideshow was selling these prints, that they were exclusive to Sideshow and that they couldn't be purchased in print form anywhere else, which absolutely was the case. That doesn't mean they will be exclusive forever or that Sideshow owns the rights to the images outright.

Unfortunately, Lau still hasn't gotten back with me, but I expect he will soon as he is pretty good at getting back with people in a pretty timely manner.

[k-9]

hey orange. if lau created ssc prints by computer only then the art would only be a image on a file rather than a tangible thing like a hand drawn art on paper.

can't that affect who owns the image?

[OrangeCrush]

Originally Posted by thecollector80

i see. so it's possible then, for example, the poison ivy print can be reissued by lau since that's pretty much 100% sold out and the ES run is a done deal with ssc. if that's the case AND he can reissue them in 18"x24" then that would be good times for guys who missed out on it. even if its in 11x17" so long as its the same poison ivy image that would still be the bomb...with a free Lau sig on it.

Yes, if Lau still owns the rights to those images, which I absolutely believe to be the case, he can produce a new edition for Ivy, and all of the other prints he produced for Sideshow. It is possible that Lau signed a timed exclusivity deal which means Lau has to wait a certain amount of time before producing any additional editions. If he did sign a timed exclusivity deal, its very likely it would be no more than 6 months, maybe a year at most.

As for the size of the prints, unfortunately Lau seems to be a big fan of 11x17 as the VAST majority of prints released by Lau directly have been 11x17. I hate 11x17 as I think their just too small. I think 13x19 is VASTLY superior. I have sent Lau multiple messages regarding this topic, going as far as begging him to ditch the 11x17 format and at least move up to 13x19. I did hear back from him a few months back and he said he was looking at various sizes and papers for his upcoming Ink Ink Collectible prints. Wether than means we will see another 18x24 Ivy print in anyone's guess, but he is certainly within his right to do so if he still owns the rights to these images, which again I absolutely believe to be the case.

And yes, you can expect all of Ink Ink Collectible prints to have real Lau signatures. None of this autopen/machine replicated signature crap.

Originally Posted by k-9

hey orange. if lau created ssc prints by computer only then the art would only be a image on a file rather than a tangible thing like a hand drawn art on paper.

can't that affect who owns the image?

No. That doesn't effect anything. It doesn't matter if the original is a painting, a photograph, a drawing, or a digital file. The artist that created it automatically owns the rights to it. If you look back on page 352, I actually got in a big debate regarding copyright laws concerning works of art with another member. Take a look if your interested, but to sum it all up:

According to United States Copyright Law, and quoting from the copyright.gov website, your art is considered copyright protected from "the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."

So once Lau finishes a digital piece, it is automatically copyright protected. The fact that its a digital file as opposed to a physical piece of art is completely irrelevant. Its still considered a finished piece of art and all copyright rights for that artwork belong to the artist. And its all automatic and happens instantaneously the second the piece is finsihed. One doesn't have to go to the patent office or register the piece with the government or anything like that. For example, the minute I shoot a picture using my camera, the photograph is instantly and automatically copyright protected.

[k-9]

thanks orange,

one more question...is it cheaper to buy the copyright of a digital art file compared to a finished art on paper or just the same

cheers

[OrangeCrush]

Originally Posted by cstojano

Curious what an original of a digital image is. I thought you had said he works in digital, or are there actual paintings for each.

I was making a basic point about the very high cost of buying originals from high profile artists. That being said, not all of Lau's work is done 100% digital. Most artists do rough sketches of varying quality on paper before moving to the computer and starting a digital piece. For all we know, there are original sketches of varying degree's of quality of Sideshow's prints.

Ever heard of Artgerm Originals? Their a line of original artwork that actually have an "Artgerm Originals" Logo on the bottom of the artwork. Here are a coupleof examples:











These are all original pieces of art, not digital pieces. Most are commissions, but the point is that Lau doesn't just use a computer and its very likely that there are original sketches out there of Sideshow's prints. They won't be anywhere near the quality of the final digital prints, but they would still be extremely valuable.

Originally Posted by k-9

thanks orange,

one more question...is it cheaper to buy the copyright of a digital art file compared to a finished art on paper or just the same

cheers

Yes, its usually a bit cheaper buying the rights to a digital original over a physical original, simple because the physical original has significant value and someone can sell it without selling the rights to the image itself, thus recouping some of the cost of buying the rights of that particular piece of art.

While the buyer in both cases has the potential to make as many open/limited print editions as he desires, the person buying the physical piece actually gets a high valued piece of original art while the person buying the digital piece just gets a digital file capable of producing prints.

For example, compare buying an original painting from Lucio Parrillo or Alex Ross (along with full rights to the image) vs buying a digital file with the full rights from Stanley Lau. In both cases the buyer owns the rights to the image and again can produce as many open/limited editions as he desires, but the buyer of the physical original actually has an original piece of art that is extremely valuable. Again, that person can sell that original painting and still own the rights to the artwork. The owner of the digital file doesn't have that option. An original painting by Lucio Parrillo can sell for as much as $5,000 to $10,000. An original paining by Alex Ross can sell for $15,000+. So there is a considerable advantage value wise to buying an original painting/drawing over buying an original digital file.

Given, the buyer of the original physical artwork has to spend some money to get a high quality scan made that is capable of producing high quality prints, but that would cost $300 to $500 at most. Its important to note that I was speaking in regards to high profile artists like Stanley Lau, J. Scott Campbell, Alex Ross, etc. The lower you go down the ladder of popularity, the less of a difference there will be cost wise between digital/physical.

Originally Posted by Luminous

I understand why the prints would have to be a different size (not necessarily smaller) but why do people assume they have to be lesser quality?

They don't have to be lesser quality and they don't even have to be a different size either. Again, the only requirement when making a new edition is that it can be distinguishable from the other edition. The idea that a new edition has to be a different size or of lesser quality is....well, its just not true at all. As I stated earlier, as long as Lau sill owns the rights, he could produce an identical print in both size and paper. All he would have to do is put an Ink Ink Collectibles logo on the bottom border of the print and he would be perfectly within his rights. Again, the idea that you can't produce a new edition of the same size and that it has to be lesser in quality is just not true at all.

[forerunner]

Originally Posted by OrangeCrush

I was making a basic point about the very high cost of buying originals from high profile artists. And not all of Lau's work is done 100% digital. Most artists do rough sketches of varying quality on paper before moving to the computer and starting a digital piece. For all we know, there are sketches of varying degree's of quality of Sideshow's prints.

Ever heard of Artgerm Originals? Their a line of original artwork that actually have an "Artgerm Originals" Logo on the bottom of the artwork. Here are a coupleof examples:

ERMIGERD!!!

[BurningRage]

300 es

[k-9]

whats the password?

[fderado]

Drop down menu not even working....only 'select' appears when I click it. Click the preorder button and it will say...'select from drop down menu' first. WTH! I give up.

[Drahmin]

not digging SW so I will pass. Second thought...I'm officially done with the prints. Good luck to everyone here.