G88 Breaking Bad ARG/Gallery SHOW?!?!? (RUMOR)

[breakingbadger]

It says that they don't want to be sued, not necessarily that they think there's anything wrong with it.

you don't think that there might be something wrong that you're liable to get sued over?

just because they were creating bootlegs doesn't necessarily mean they believed what they were doing was "right."

I have done many things I knew were wrong! alas, bootlegging is not one of them.

I can definitely see where lawsuits would be coming from, as it is profiting off of others' work without compensating them. What I was getting at is that artists who've gained fame by bootlegging and then quit it might have done it for financial reasons rather than moral ones. Some may have felt they were doing something wrong, but some might not have felt that way. It's also hard to say how they'd advise an aspiring artist. Maybe some would say "do whatever you think it will take."

[ColdSoreSuperstar]

Ethically I certainly don't think that making a print and titling it 'Breaking Bad' while using the likeness of the main character without permission is right at all. There is no way to spin it other than making money on someone else's intellectual property but if the owner of that IP is indifferent to it I certainly won't waste my time giving a fudge. I don't know if that is the case here but it is his ass on the line.

Well said. The artist breaks the rules. If you like it and want it fine but you are encouraging this practice by getting one, not that I'm high on the moral pedastal.

markets don't exist without buyers. dry up demand and supply will wither.

[mycrospazm]

For what it is worth, I said that I didn't see the big deal with Otto's print. I did not purchase it though, because I already have enough BB posters so I did not, in turn, support this rogue act of print terrorism...

[ColdSoreSuperstar]

For what it is worth, I said that I didn't see the big deal with Otto's print. I did not purchase it though, because I already have enough BB posters so I did not, in turn, support this rogue act of print terrorism...

I put it out there because it's fascinating to see it take off and watch many artists produce things, yet not many seem to care about the bootleg aspect.

I find it particularly interesting because it's such a hotbed of contention in the music poster community. On the whole, to answer Badgerman's point from above, I would say most artists currently producing gigposters actively discourage bootleggers, and are quick to point out that it's not a good practice when they see another artist doing it.

[ColdSoreSuperstar]

another question: Would you buy a full-color reproduction of an artist's sold out print that you really love the art for if someone were to produce knockoffs?

[Kramerica]

another question: Would you buy a full-color reproduction of an artist's sold out print that you really love the art for if someone were to produce knockoffs?

Making something that uses someone else's IP and making an exact replica of a piece of art are pretty far apart in my mind. Even if the bootlegger is profiting off of unlicensed material at least they create original art (for the most part, that Chris Morkaut guy is quite a specimen).

[BetterCallSaul]

Making something that uses someone else's IP and making an exact replica of a piece of art are pretty far apart in my mind. Even if the bootlegger is profiting off of unlicensed material at least they create original art (for the most part, that Chris Morkaut guy is quite a specimen).

totally agree with this.

[breakingbadger]

another question: Would you buy a full-color reproduction of an artist's sold out print that you really love the art for if someone were to produce knockoffs?

This is a whole other can of worms, but maybe more artists who have the means and popularity should keep editions open for a set amount of time or make much larger runs instead of these smaller runs of a few hundred (at most) that sell out instantly and encourage high secondary prices and bootlegging. Artists and printers make more money, flippers make less money, bootleggers are discouraged, and the only innocent people who lose are those who need an image to be rare in order to enjoy it. Personally, if it's a cool image, I don't care how rare it is. I buy stuff to put up and enjoy, not sell.

I agree with Kramerica as well.

[jamriman]

Great point. I tend to like prints that are more rare. Something for me to think about!

[ColdSoreSuperstar]

The reason I bring this up: One of the recurring answers I'm hearing is "I buy the art I like, other than that I don't care." So I'm unraveling that thread to its logical conclusion.

wondering what ethical breach is egregious enough for those who just "buy what they like" to stop buying.

[ColdSoreSuperstar]

another question: Would you buy a full-color reproduction of an artist's sold out print that you really love the art for if someone were to produce knockoffs?

This is a whole other can of worms, but maybe more artists who have the means and popularity should keep editions open for a set amount of time or make much larger runs instead of these smaller runs of a few hundred (at most) that sell out instantly and encourage high secondary prices and bootlegging. Artists and printers make more money, flippers make less money, bootleggers are discouraged, and the only innocent people who lose are those who need an image to be rare in order to enjoy it. Personally, if it's a cool image, I don't care how rare it is. I buy stuff to put up and enjoy, not sell.

I agree with Kramerica as well.

this theory presupposes that these artists will see the same demand with open editions that they will with closed, smaller ones. I don't buy that.

[breakingbadger]

this theory presupposes that these artists will see the same demand with open editions that they will with closed, smaller ones. I don't buy that.

The demand is really only helping the flippers and hurting those who just want the art on its own merit. The artists wouldn't be losing anything by the aftermarket demand going down. The ones who have a fanbase and create great art would still sell hundreds of prints at the prices they set. They'd just be going to the people who actually want them instead of the flippers, who are in essence just as bad as bootleggers who profit off of the work of others. Plus, the artists would benefit from a decrease in the bootlegging if it is as much of a danger to their long-term security as you seem to believe.

Also, just for the record, I'm not trying to hate on anyone who likes collecting rare things. Go ahead and collect them if that's your thing. I'm just speaking as someone without the means to pay crazy prices for cool art. I have paid well above original prices before. I just wish I didn't have to.

[Kramerica]

another question: Would you buy a full-color reproduction of an artist's sold out print that you really love the art for if someone were to produce knockoffs?

This is a whole other can of worms, but maybe more artists who have the means and popularity should keep editions open for a set amount of time or make much larger runs instead of these smaller runs of a few hundred (at most) that sell out instantly and encourage high secondary prices and bootlegging. Artists and printers make more money, flippers make less money, bootleggers are discouraged, and the only innocent people who lose are those who need an image to be rare in order to enjoy it. Personally, if it's a cool image, I don't care how rare it is. I buy stuff to put up and enjoy, not sell.

I agree with Kramerica as well.

this theory presupposes that these artists will see the same demand with open editions that they will with closed, smaller ones. I don't buy that.

Completely agree, there is some kind of limited aspect that makes most collectibles worth collecting. If everyone just kept printing things to meet demand it would make the hobby less enjoyable. Plus with screen prints it has to be somewhat limited, they cant just print them on demand.

[ColdSoreSuperstar]

I think you discount too easily the effect of hype and limited editions on the general public. A cool print that I *might* consider buying could turn into a *must have* with the power of the hive mind. Hence, I think, some of the insane fervor for many of these film/TV prints (or Phish/DMB prints, too).

Obviously there has to be talent there first, but I don't think it's ALL based on earnest pursuit of an artist's work.

another thing -- while I don't particularly care for instant resellers, they drive demand, and can actually be a GOOD thing for some artists.

[bathroommonkey]

it all comes down to entitlement.

collectors love their show or movie and feel entitled to own art connected to said media.

collectors feel entitled to be able to own afordable art. thus they get what they need from whoever is willing to supply.

bootlegers feel entitled to fill the supply demand that limited "legit" artist can't legally fill.

entitlement, it's a hell of a drug.