The Tim Doyle/ Nakatomi Art Thread

General art-related discussion.
Whitey9457
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 691
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 11:52 am

Thu May 28, 2015 6:10 pm

dropdoctor wrote:Get a room you two.
Pretty funny how your arguments constantly go to ad hominem attacks because there is no way to justify Tim's behavior... your only option is to attack the people making the opposing argument.
Image
MoviePosterEmpire

Thu May 28, 2015 6:12 pm

dropdoctor wrote:Get a room you two.
Image
User avatar
alittle
Art Freak
Posts: 15287
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:10 am

Thu May 28, 2015 6:13 pm

Y'all should sue him for damages!

Oh wait, there are none.
Image
User avatar
geezer
Art Expert
Posts: 1757
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:56 am
Location: Morro Bay, CA

Thu May 28, 2015 6:14 pm

Question. If TD is so crooked, why the hell did you hire his shop for the job??
Image
alexfugazi
Art Expert
Posts: 1539
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 1:55 am

Thu May 28, 2015 6:17 pm

Image
User avatar
whl10
Art Expert
Posts: 5509
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 12:25 am

Thu May 28, 2015 6:19 pm

Maden is not only one with a fundraiser!
User avatar
fredo
Art God
Posts: 26642
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:26 pm
Location: ENZEE

Thu May 28, 2015 6:21 pm

MoviePosterEmpire wrote:
fredo wrote:
Whitey9457 wrote:
Superfro33 wrote:But who pays Marvel?
completely separate issue. pointing to another issue doesn't just make the issue at hand disappear.
Here it does.
How does pointing to the issue make this issue disappear. Do you magically think that Doyle wouldn't do the same thing with a licensed print or private art print in the same situation? The issue isn't with WHAT was printed but with how the business end of it was handled. That's what the problem ALWAYS is with Doyle, the business end.
"When logic fails, make it emotional."
just a foil for me today, thanks
Whitey9457
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 691
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 11:52 am

Thu May 28, 2015 6:23 pm

alittle wrote:Y'all should sue him for damages!

Oh wait, there are none.
Actually, for this type of infringement, I'm guessing that there are predetermined statutory damages as well as unjust enrichment damages for the income Doyle received by selling someone else's art. These might technically not apply since it's unclear whether Tim owned the right to sell these prints... I think he might've owned them but didn't own the right to sell them and only gained ownership by lying to the commission...so it's a little too complicated to pretend i fully understand it 100%...

Regardless of all of the legal arguments, we're not talking about a court of law here, we're really just talking about the ethics. Since there isn't going to be a lawsuit, really the only option is for people to share this story online and discuss it, etc. and let public opinion be the judge.
Last edited by Whitey9457 on Thu May 28, 2015 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Buckhammer
Art Expert
Posts: 1484
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:49 pm
Location: Tejas

Thu May 28, 2015 6:31 pm

Nobody has the right to SELL the prints since it is unlicensed. Since the original commission was not for profit, they are somewhat in the clear until one of them sells one ( this is debatable and no company in their right mind would sue or bring a lawsuit that isnt worth the lawyer's court costs to fight). Now Tim on the other hand is using the prints to stuff in mystery tubes. the tubes are advertised as 5 prints per tube at 50. Now if tim added each of those prints ON TOP of the five he is in clear legally and to me ethically. However this does not seem to be the case. Technically if it was one of the five, it is a sale and tim is liable. Now again Marvel would never do anything over 1000 dollars in which even if they win would only get up to 20% of the gross sales ( $200.00). Just alittle research on the interwebs regarding copyright law not a lawyer or anything. SO to me at least, it is a bit unethicalfor a printer to sell other peoples art to begin with, test print or not, without the artistlcient permission ( perhaps adding that to the printing contract)
RobJones wrote:Billy, how Everest was I last night?
User avatar
fredo
Art God
Posts: 26642
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:26 pm
Location: ENZEE

Thu May 28, 2015 6:35 pm

I'm guessing some big companies have written off legal costs for the sake of setting an example. Not that this fudge is worth it, but...
just a foil for me today, thanks
MoviePosterEmpire

Thu May 28, 2015 6:36 pm

fredo wrote:
MoviePosterEmpire wrote: How does pointing to the issue make this issue disappear. Do you magically think that Doyle wouldn't do the same thing with a licensed print or private art print in the same situation? The issue isn't with WHAT was printed but with how the business end of it was handled. That's what the problem ALWAYS is with Doyle, the business end.
"When logic fails, make it emotional."
Image
MoviePosterEmpire

Thu May 28, 2015 6:37 pm

MoviePosterEmpire wrote:Someone should start a webpage where we all just write articles that lay out Doyle's shadiness until it becomes the top Google search when someone looks him or Nakatomi up.
User avatar
fredo
Art God
Posts: 26642
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:26 pm
Location: ENZEE

Thu May 28, 2015 6:39 pm

Speaking of emotion taking the reins.
just a foil for me today, thanks
alexfugazi
Art Expert
Posts: 1539
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 1:55 am

Thu May 28, 2015 6:40 pm

Christ sakes people.
I refunded the customer, and told them I would use these for scrap and test prints. They agreed. I did what I said.
I blow out my scrach/dent/scrap/test prints in tube sales.
Whatever their expectations were, it wasn't communicated to me, even though we were clearly communicating with each other as evidenced by my email posted above.
I wouldn't have done that with this print job if I didn't have their agreement, as indicated above.

This is a miscommunication that should have been handled privately, but the client decided to post about it publicly instead of talking to me directly for some reason.

You can jump up and down and yell and scream all you want, but it doesn't change these facts.
Buckhammer
Art Expert
Posts: 1484
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:49 pm
Location: Tejas

Thu May 28, 2015 6:43 pm

fredo wrote:I'm guessing some big companies have written off legal costs for the sake of setting an example. Not that this fudge is worth it, but...
exactly. so if we remove the LEGALITY of the topic. it comes down to business ethics. Like I said, adding something to the invoice or contract when you print with Tim stating that he reserves the right sell or distribute any and all test prints solves the ethics problem...

Tim I saw what you just wrote. As a business owner myself I get it, but you need to have everything in writing when it comes to this stuff. SOlves alot of nonsense. IMO of course.
RobJones wrote:Billy, how Everest was I last night?
Locked