Commission discussion

General art-related discussion.
Post Reply
User avatar
farva2
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 943
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 12:02 am
Location: Los Angeles-CA

Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:03 am

Mitchell's pulp portraits, Eng's recent work, fosdike, etc. Commissions are everywhere. Is it good for the hobby? Good for the artists? How will established companies respond, if at all? Share your thoughts on the commission boom. EB artists, please feel free to chime in as well.
mistersmith wrote: (an unlicensed Bad Boys 2 poster is probably the least essential use I can think of for a piece of paper. At least if you wipe your ass with some paper you will have cleaned up a mess).
User avatar
alittle
Art Freak
Posts: 15289
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:10 am

Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:05 am

Kind of funny to watch, but has no real impact on me.
Image
User avatar
punch
Art Expert
Posts: 3983
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:22 pm

Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:27 am

To me, it means the established companies aren't giving the people the posters that people want. All these commissions seem to be movie posters with heavy use of likenesses. That's the trend I see at least.

Of course it's good for the artists, there is no middle man. They get to make a quick buck off the fanboys without anyone telling them no. They just have to be Ok with ripping off other peoples IP without any kind of compensation. This doesn't seem to be much of a problem.
User avatar
binky79
Art Expert
Posts: 6344
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:15 pm
Location: DFW burbs

Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:41 am

No idea how it's affecting galleries. You could argue that it means less business for them, but on the other hand it might contribute to overall growth. Either way, I assume it's great for the artists. And while it seems like there are a ton of groups doing it now, I wonder about the sustainability. I'm surprised there haven't been more licensing issues, or maybe there have been but they've been kept quiet.

Personally? I have no idea what they're doing with all these posters. I'm somewhat overwhelmed by what I already have. I never really got into this to be a "collector", it came about from my love for movies and need to fill blank wallspace. Here recently, I've been far more picky about what comes in and more liberal about what goes out.
User avatar
fitz
Art Expert
Posts: 6900
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:10 am

Wed Aug 27, 2014 8:05 am

I much prefer stuff that is "official" (no real reason why, I just do) and so the fan art commissions dont get me too excited but I can see how it would be cool to be involved with commissioning the artist, having input etc.

plus the ability to ignore likeness rights and credit block etc issues must be fantastic - the whole likeness rights thing I just find bizarre once you are talking about a licensed print for a movie - its not like the actors involved (i.e. those that negotiate to retain all rights) have not been WELL compensated already, still it is what it is.

there are many movies I would love to see done well but as most of the artists I really like dont do commissions (or if they did they would be prohibitively expensive) its a non-starter (I know there are hundreds of very talented lesser known artists but a large part of what sells any print is the identity of the artist).

would love (LOVE) to get a Rollerball print from Olly but given he can make thousands at the drop of a hat by releasing a new 5x5 what could I offer to compete? just a shame (for me) I didnt win a golden ticket :(
User avatar
whl10
Art Expert
Posts: 5509
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 12:25 am

Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:28 am

.
Last edited by whl10 on Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
evilpresence
Art Expert
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:39 am
Location: Frozen Tundra 4a

Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:33 am

punch wrote:To me, it means the established companies aren't giving the people the posters that people want. All these commissions seem to be movie posters with heavy use of likenesses. That's the trend I see at least.

Of course it's good for the artists, there is no middle man. They get to make a quick buck off the fanboys without anyone telling them no. They just have to be Ok with ripping off other peoples IP without any kind of compensation. This doesn't seem to be much of a problem.
This pretty much sums it up.
User avatar
Isqael
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 3:58 pm
Location: New York City

Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:38 am

punch wrote:To me, it means the established companies aren't giving the people the posters that people want...
This.

Every commission you see come about recently are mostly for franchises that have nothing in the EB archives or prints that are heavily neutered.
User avatar
biscocrack420
Art Expert
Posts: 5913
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 2:29 pm

Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:45 am

alittle wrote:Kind of funny to watch, but has no real impact on me.
User avatar
finneganm
Art Freak
Posts: 16341
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: NJ

Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:48 am

On the contrary, I think it's very potentially bad for the artists. All you need is some high strung executive/actor/producer whatever who freaks out when they see an unlicensed piece being sold to show the artist how powerful copyright laws can be. Didn't that happen with that Terminator 2 print earlier this year?Image (yes I know it wasn't a commission, but it was still unlicensed)
I also think it's terrible in the long run for collectors as they are feeding an already oversaturated market with unlicensed pieces. How many of these do we really need? Are some of them great, of course they are, there are some very talented artists out there doing this. But let's be honest, there is also a lot of crap.
I've been a part of a few of these commissions, and very well might be a part of some more, but as a whole I think they are terrible for the hobby.
...
...
That's what she said
User avatar
jeter0204
Art Expert
Posts: 5548
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:53 am
Location: Frisco, TX
Contact:

Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:51 am

If these galleries are going to stick with the same 10-15 properties then of course commissions are going to exisit. THe lack of creativty from the galleries is what is driving everyone to other avenues to obtain a print they desire. I know we don't have to deal with licenses and stuff but still it really shouldn't be that hard to branch out.

Take the Bad Boys 2 commission for example. I know that none of the galleries would probably ever put a piece out for Bad Boys 2 and I would love to have one, therefore the only way of obtaining this is via the commission route. Also a lot of these galleries pay the artist fudge when it comes to their art, they usually make their money via their AP sales. Why not take up a commission group that is willing to pay $3,000-$10,000 to you for the art as well as provide you with AP's on top of it?

The only people they could be losing in the practice would maybe be the galleries and the studios. I would much rather pay $50-100 for a print I really want as oppose to another print for a property that has been done a thousand times already.
ImageImageImage
danieldanger wrote: "...IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN STOUT. WHY WASNT IT STOUT? MY GOD PEOPLE, WE COULD BE HOLDING STOUT POSTERS RIGHT NOW."
User avatar
jeter0204
Art Expert
Posts: 5548
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:53 am
Location: Frisco, TX
Contact:

Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:53 am

finneganm wrote:On the contrary, I think it's very potentially bad for the artists. All you need is some high strung executive/actor/producer whatever who freaks out when they see an unlicensed piece being sold to show the artist how powerful copyright laws can be. Didn't that happen with that Terminator 2 print earlier this year?Image (yes I know it wasn't a commission, but it was still unlicensed)
I also think it's terrible in the long run for collectors as they are feeding an already oversaturated market with unlicensed pieces. How many of these do we really need? Are some of them great, of course they are, there are some very talented artists out there doing this. But let's be honest, there is also a lot of crap.
I've been a part of a few of these commissions, and very well might be a part of some more, but as a whole I think they are terrible for the hobby.
There was a lot more drama behind that piece. I believe it had to do with Pitts thinking he was getting the license but then Mondo ended up coming in and buying it instead and then he was left with this print. When he tried to sell it the studio or whoever was not happy with it and send the cease and desist letter. At least that's what I recall happening.
ImageImageImage
danieldanger wrote: "...IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN STOUT. WHY WASNT IT STOUT? MY GOD PEOPLE, WE COULD BE HOLDING STOUT POSTERS RIGHT NOW."
User avatar
finneganm
Art Freak
Posts: 16341
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: NJ

Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:55 am

The point is that it's an unlicensed print being sold by an artist interpreting a copyrighted property done without license from the source. I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't pass the smell test.
...
...
That's what she said
User avatar
sidewaysscott
Art God
Posts: 22111
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:22 am
Location: denver

Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:55 am

meh
pay via paypal, use credit card,file dispute at the 20 day mark if suspicious. don't deal with noobs. don't trade with noobs. request feedback ahead of time. there are lots of good people 'round here.
IWish
Art Expert
Posts: 9852
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 12:23 am

Wed Aug 27, 2014 10:06 am

That original commission group was more of a power trip than anything, I think. Maybe not so much with the new groups that have sprung up. Dunno', really...I don't go into those links as a rule.

I haven't really seen any commissioned prints that were all that great...maybe one or two that are exceptions. Still can't bring myself to buy one, though.
Post Reply