The Tim Doyle/ Nakatomi Art Thread

[Whitey9457]

But who pays Marvel?

completely separate issue. pointing to another issue doesn't just make the issue at hand disappear.

[Darkknight37]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[zefarrett]

I am about to go get some hot dogs. I'll let you know how it goes. But I bet it will be better than awful.

Jesus christ, I cant handle the suspense any more. How were they?!?

[rubberneck]

[MoviePosterEmpire]

All of these analogies are terrible. They all ignore the fact that the "store" was commissioned to create the "shirt" for 1 buyer (the artist/owner of the art if commissioned). The store didn't have rights to sell the shirt publicly, they only had the right to create the shirt for this particular buyer (because of the art used on the shirt). The store messes up, that doesn't give them rights to now sell the art (which someone else owns) publicly. Does no one else see how this would essentially give an incentive to mess up future print jobs? Free art. All you need to do is pay for the materials. You should generally feel discouraged about making errors because it will cost you money. While this theoretically might cost future clients for Tim (which is why people with no horse in the race feel the need to make these shady businesses public knowledge), that is a theoretical loss. Tim actually found a way to likely profit off his errors while selling someone else's art and lessening the value of the true final print that people own.

Also pretty hilarious that Tim had been paid for the commission, got the free art (minus expenses), sold the free art that he was paid to create... and then finally gave a "refund" after he had a chance to profit off all of it. IMO he owes the person who owns the art (either the artist or the commission) for every print he sold, even if it is just flat rate 1/5 of each tube that contained one ($10/tube with this print since the tubes were $50 for 5 prints).

~100 prints totals 20 full mystery tubes or $1,000 for Nakatomi. Cost to print ~100 Avengers prints ~14/~9 colors is ~$2,100 when hiring Nakatomi. I'd guess the actual cost is closer to break even on this, if that. Either way, there's no disincentive for him to do shoddy work if he can just cut something that's misprinted and call it S&D.

[maden]

I am about to go get some hot dogs. I'll let you know how it goes. But I bet it will be better than awful.

Jesus christ, I cant handle the suspense any more. How were they?!?

Delicious. Sorry to keep you waiting.





Only 29 days left!! https://life.indiegogo.com/fundraisers/ ... x/10920743

[fredo]

The store didn't have rights to sell the shirt publicly, they only had the right to create the shirt for this particular buyer (because of the art used on the shirt).

Lels..."rights".

Tim had been paid for the commission, got the free art (minus expenses), sold the free art that he was paid to create... and then finally gave a "refund" after he had a chance to profit off all of it.

If this were a math problem the answer would be a negative number.

But who pays Marvel?

completely separate issue. pointing to another issue doesn't just make the issue at hand disappear.

Here it does.

[MoviePosterEmpire]

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.

All of these analogies are terrible. They all ignore the fact that the "store" was commissioned to create the "shirt" for 1 buyer (the artist/owner of the art if commissioned). The store didn't have rights to sell the shirt publicly, they only had the right to create the shirt for this particular buyer (because of the art used on the shirt). The store messes up, that doesn't give them rights to now sell the art (which someone else owns) publicly. Does no one else see how this would essentially give an incentive to mess up future print jobs? Free art. All you need to do is pay for the materials. You should generally feel discouraged about making errors because it will cost you money. While this theoretically might cost future clients for Tim (which is why people with no horse in the race feel the need to make these shady businesses public knowledge), that is a theoretical loss. Tim actually found a way to likely profit off his errors while selling someone else's art and lessening the value of the true final print that people own.

Also pretty hilarious that Tim had been paid for the commission, got the free art (minus expenses), sold the free art that he was paid to create... and then finally gave a "refund" after he had a chance to profit off all of it. IMO he owes the person who owns the art (either the artist or the commission) for every print he sold, even if it is just flat rate 1/5 of each tube that contained one ($10/tube with this print since the tubes were $50 for 5 prints).

~100 prints totals 20 full mystery tubes or $1,000 for Nakatomi. Cost to print ~100 Avengers prints ~14/~9 colors is ~$2,100 when hiring Nakatomi. I'd guess the actual cost is closer to break even on this, if that. Either way, there's no disincentive for him to do shoddy work if he can just cut something that's misprinted and call it S&D.

You two are real drymounting pieces of work.

But keep pulling fudge out of your ass, it's very entertaining.

Did he not fill an extra 25 tubes that he otherwise wouldn't have been able to fill by using these prints?

[partpat]

Those dogs and fries look on point tho maden!! Good luck w the fund raising.

[alittle]

I think he deserves a medal for making any money off that fudge.

[Whitey9457]

All of these analogies are terrible. They all ignore the fact that the "store" was commissioned to create the "shirt" for 1 buyer (the artist/owner of the art if commissioned). The store didn't have rights to sell the shirt publicly, they only had the right to create the shirt for this particular buyer (because of the art used on the shirt). The store messes up, that doesn't give them rights to now sell the art (which someone else owns) publicly. Does no one else see how this would essentially give an incentive to mess up future print jobs? Free art. All you need to do is pay for the materials. You should generally feel discouraged about making errors because it will cost you money. While this theoretically might cost future clients for Tim (which is why people with no horse in the race feel the need to make these shady businesses public knowledge), that is a theoretical loss. Tim actually found a way to likely profit off his errors while selling someone else's art and lessening the value of the true final print that people own.

Also pretty hilarious that Tim had been paid for the commission, got the free art (minus expenses), sold the free art that he was paid to create... and then finally gave a "refund" after he had a chance to profit off all of it. IMO he owes the person who owns the art (either the artist or the commission) for every print he sold, even if it is just flat rate 1/5 of each tube that contained one ($10/tube with this print since the tubes were $50 for 5 prints).

~100 prints totals 20 full mystery tubes or $1,000 for Nakatomi. Cost to print ~100 Avengers prints ~14/~9 colors is ~$2,100 when hiring Nakatomi. I'd guess the actual cost is closer to break even on this, if that. Either way, there's no disincentive for him to do shoddy work if he can just cut something that's misprinted and call it S&D.

You two are real drymounting pieces of work.

But keep pulling fudge out of your ass, it's very entertaining.

I'm constantly amazed by how people are not only willing to accept the decisions Tim Doyle makes... but actually will defend them. Pretty much every other printer would take the loss and throw these prints away and learn a lesson.

There is no denying that there are IP issues with the commission... not sure how that justifies what Tim did... I know that none of us have all of the facts, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. This is just another item on the list of sketchy business decisions Tim has made. Maybe taken on its own, each of these issues could be justified... but it's a trend with Tim to just squeeze every penny out of every situation regardless of who he is misleading.

Isn't he always talking about how he encourages artists to follow his lead to get more money in the pockets of artists? Seems like Tim Doyle is really only focused on getting more money in the pockets of Tim Doyle.

[MoviePosterEmpire]

Being an artist himself that makes perfect sense. Keep trying.

Are you trolling in favor of Doyle or do you really like Doyle as a person?

[Whitey9457]

Tim had been paid for the commission, got the free art (minus expenses), sold the free art that he was paid to create... and then finally gave a "refund" after he had a chance to profit off all of it.

If this were a math problem the answer would be a negative number.

Well, even if that's true, then it should've been a bigger negative number. "I messed up and ended up losing money so i was just trying to cut my losses" is not justification for selling someone's art without their permission.

But who pays Marvel?

completely separate issue. pointing to another issue doesn't just make the issue at hand disappear.

Here it does.

Not sure how...? There were IP issues with the commission so that gives Tim Doyle carte blanche to do what he wants and not worry about repercussions? The sad thing is, that I think that was probably part of Tim's justification. He knows no one would ever make a big fuss out of this because they didn't have the rights to do the art. Legally there might be a point here, but ethically it doesn't change anything except possibly make this worse that Tim did this knowing he would have leverage to do what he wants here.

[Whitey9457]

Being an artist himself that makes perfect sense. Keep trying.

Not in this situation. Here, he is a printer.

[PapaVo]