Drunken Promises 15 Doyle

[mobius006]

I ended things. She said not nice things about me. I got sad and kind of defended Doyle?

I shall never live down this shame!

did she insult your cooking?

[dsanacore]

I ended things. She said not nice things about me. I got sad and kind of defended Doyle?

I shall never live down this shame!

did she insult your cooking?

Things didn't get THAT bad.

[Codeblue]

She refused to PB?

[dsanacore]

Apparently she slept with another man atop a large pile of money.

[selenite]

put the other peoples toys away

Just don't act like you're above it, dude — you're way too high up on your horse. If you hadn't reached the mondo masses with Star Wars, Star Trek, Lost and a ton of "other peoples toys" properties, you wouldn't still be drawing ambiguously-titled pictures of ghost nurses in old houses for anybody. People around here don't want to hear a new band playing originals, they just want covers of songs they've already heard.

And don't forget who started the company that pays you to draw movie posters. Doyled.

[bubbie]

This thread keeps bringing on all aspects.

P.S. Dan is the man.

P.P.S. dsanacore, sorry to hear dude.

[ejg904]

if you're as much of a straight shooter as you claim to be - why not just post something to the extent of, "if this edition sells out, i retain the right to reprint as many editions as i see fit" on the page where people have the option to add the print to their cart? put it right next to where you tell the customer how many colors the print is, its size, and all the other information people consider before making a purchase.

you know, just as well as everyone, that neglecting to disclose that information likely translates to higher conversion. i get it; you're a business owner - you want to make sales. you should want to make sales. nobody should have an issue with that - if they do, they are delusional.

i'm also not arguing "whether it's okay to print multiple editions of things" - because it has been rehashed hundred of times and, more importantly, you're entitled to do as you please. print 16 editions, just be up front with people that if an edition sells out, you retain the right to reprint more editions. why won't you do that? print, reprint, reprint, reprint until your heart is content - just let people know that they MAY have another shot at purchasing "___" at cost directly from your site in the form of a second, third whatever edition.

lying by omission and lying by commission are very different kinds of lies. while you do not tell people, "'_____' will never be reprinted" and then turn around and reprint it; you also fail to mention that you retain the right to reprint as many editions of a print as you deem necessary. you (intentionally or unintentionally) neglect to disclose this information which, to some, is highly relevant/pertinent to their purchasing decision. i suspect you fail to mention this disclaimer in order to foster a misconception - that once a print sells out, it's gone forever. since that's how a majority of the art world treats editions that are sold out, it's a pretty reasonable assumption for a customer to make.

it's also reasonable to assume that some who are "on the fence" about buying one of your prints are swayed to the "buy" side when they fear it will sell out, and they'll be forced to turn to the inflated prices frequently observed on the secondary market in order to get the print. if people were aware that an edition will likely be reprinted if/when it sells out - some customers would likely delay purchases, get distracted/forget about it when they stumble in to the next pretty piece of paper that catches their eye. if they knew they could always just grab a copy from one of your later editions, maybe they would feel that making that purchase is less of a priority, less of a "call to action." quite possibly, you might lose sales. is this why you choose not to inform people that you may, at your sole discretion, create new editions to satiate demand? if you agree that this information could dissuade some from buying your art - it sort of feels like you're intentionally omitting information to drive sales. that feels somewhat back-handed, and i think that's why many people here try (poorly, i might add) to jump on the "THIS IS BULLSHIT!!" bandwagon. forgive them, they are not articulate enough to use their words to raise their concerns in a civil fashion.

absolutely, people could do their homework and see that you frequently reprint images to satisfy the demand for your art - evidently, expecting your customers to research your business practices doesn't sit particularly well with some people here. yes, you get emails from people thanking you for releasing a new edition of a previously sold out work. just like you listen to that input, you should also listen to the (more reasonable - not the angry/aggressive) concerns people raise here.

at the end of the day, a lie is a lie. you do not lie by commission; you'll have to decide for yourself whether you lie by omission. if in doubt, why not just throw the disclaimer on the sales page? if you believe, in your heart of hearts, that it truly doesn't matter, then you should have no concerns adding it to your sales page(s). furthermore, you would likely get less hate from the EB'ers who bring this whole thing up several times a year. if they were butthurt that you elected to release a new edition on a previously sold out print, you could point squarely to the fact that on the very page buyers added the print to their cart - they were made fully aware that you retain the right (not the obligation) to release as many editions as you see fit.

tldr; why don't you just let buyers know that you may choose to release more editions of sold out work?

[Kramerica]

put the other peoples toys away

Just don't act like you're above it, dude — you're way too high up on your horse. If you hadn't reached the mondo masses with Star Wars, Star Trek, Lost and a ton of "other peoples toys" properties, you wouldn't still be drawing ambiguously-titled pictures of ghost nurses in old houses for anybody. People around here don't want to hear a new band playing originals, they just want covers of songs they've already heard.

And don't forget who started the company that pays you to draw movie posters. Doyled.

This post is so full of stupid it amazes me.

[maddog76]

its great you can sell 10,000 unliscenced simpsons prints vs my couple hundo sad asshole prints about death

quote of year.

Man it would suck if someone, like say, oh I don't know, Fox, sued me for copyright infringement and I stated a transformative use defense, would hate to have to tell the judge that my "limited one time only art" is actually reprinted whenever I feel like it and the poster is less an expression of art but a revenue stream to pay my mortgage. May not make a difference, fair use is pretty much up to whatever the judge feels like, but your odds of winning are 1000X times better with a single painting then a mass produced print reprinted year after year.

Also, this is on my wall.

[thisisjosh]

The truth is, I just REALLY like debating and arguing on the internet. My time would be better spent elsewhere. But I think this discussion is important.
But think about what you're saying for a moment- you're implying that I'm lying about my support. But why do you think there is a 10th edition of Cook, Change into a Truck, or 'Got to be Kind'? It's because all the previous editions sold out. Someone is buying those prints, man. People who like my art. That's just 3 of my in-print posters. They may not be people active in the online community- but the mistake people make is thinking that the internet, or boards like this represent a significant portion of the buying public.

The Cook is popular because Breaking Bad is popular and your art is cheap to buy. People bought got to be kind because they like kurt vonnegut and it's cheap. Change into a truck is popular because you took someone else's well received art and spoofed it with another popular franchise...

None of these pieces are really that great IMO although none of my complaints are with the art you produce. I would've maybe considered buying The Cook (because I am a breaking bad fan and your art is cheap) but on principle I won't buy your stuff anymore because you deliberately deceive people and then make fun of them online. Only the tactics you use to sell them which you call "advertising" and "marketing" but it is just lowering the bar while taking advantage of the industry standards... basically your only justifications are "well i'm not breaking any laws by lying" and "I make more money this way"

Who drymountin cares

[bulkhead72]

Surprised that Rero guy hasn't chimed in yet.

[alexfugazi]

if you're as much of a straight shooter as you claim to be - why not just post something to the extent of, "if this edition sells out, i retain the right to reprint as many editions as i see fit" on the page where people have the option to add the print to their cart? put it right next to where you tell the customer how many colors the print is, its size, and all the other information people consider before making a purchase.

you know, just as well as everyone, that neglecting to disclose that information likely translates to higher conversion. i get it; you're a business owner - you want to make sales. you should want to make sales. nobody should have an issue with that - if they do, they are delusional.

i'm also not arguing "whether it's okay to print multiple editions of things" - because it has been rehashed hundred of times and, more importantly, you're entitled to do as you please. print 16 editions, just be up front with people that if an edition sells out, you retain the right to reprint more editions. why won't you do that? print, reprint, reprint, reprint until your heart is content - just let people know that they MAY have another shot at purchasing "___" at cost directly from your site in the form of a second, third whatever edition.

lying by omission and lying by commission are very different kinds of lies. while you do not tell people, "'_____' will never be reprinted" and then turn around and reprint it; you also fail to mention that you retain the right to reprint as many editions of a print as you deem necessary. you (intentionally or unintentionally) neglect to disclose this information which, to some, is highly relevant/pertinent to their purchasing decision. i suspect you fail to mention this disclaimer in order to foster a misconception - that once a print sells out, it's gone forever. since that's how a majority of the art world treats editions that are sold out, it's a pretty reasonable assumption for a customer to make.

it's also reasonable to assume that some who are "on the fence" about buying one of your prints are swayed to the "buy" side when they fear it will sell out, and they'll be forced to turn to the inflated prices frequently observed on the secondary market in order to get the print. if people were aware that an edition will likely be reprinted if/when it sells out - some customers would likely delay purchases, get distracted/forget about it when they stumble in to the next pretty piece of paper that catches their eye. if they knew they could always just grab a copy from one of your later editions, maybe they would feel that making that purchase is less of a priority, less of a "call to action." quite possibly, you might lose sales. is this why you choose not to inform people that you may, at your sole discretion, create new editions to satiate demand? if you agree that this information could dissuade some from buying your art - it sort of feels like you're intentionally omitting information to drive sales. that feels somewhat back-handed, and i think that's why many people here try (poorly, i might add) to jump on the "THIS IS BULLSHIT!!" bandwagon. forgive them, they are not articulate enough to use their words to raise their concerns in a civil fashion.

absolutely, people could do their homework and see that you frequently reprint images to satisfy the demand for your art - evidently, expecting your customers to research your business practices doesn't sit particularly well with some people here. yes, you get emails from people thanking you for releasing a new edition of a previously sold out work. just like you listen to that input, you should also listen to the (more reasonable - not the angry/aggressive) concerns people raise here.

at the end of the day, a lie is a lie. you do not lie by commission; you'll have to decide for yourself whether you lie by omission. if in doubt, why not just throw the disclaimer on the sales page? if you believe, in your heart of hearts, that it truly doesn't matter, then you should have no concerns adding it to your sales page(s). furthermore, you would likely get less hate from the EB'ers who bring this whole thing up several times a year. if they were butthurt that you elected to release a new edition on a previously sold out print, you could point squarely to the fact that on the very page buyers added the print to their cart - they were made fully aware that you retain the right (not the obligation) to release as many editions as you see fit.

tldr; why don't you just let buyers know that you may choose to release more editions of sold out work?

Like I said earlier- that is a fair point, and I'll figure out a way to do this. Considering the majority of my prints on my site (not other artists work- they can choose to reprint or not on their own, this isn't a Nakatomi issue so much as a Tim Doyle issue)- since the majority of my prints on my site are reprints, and are named as such, in the text, I don't think anyone is being deceived there in the least. However, despite the fact that I do reprint a lot, and there's a lot of clearly labelled reprints on my site, and blog posts announcing new editions, and a lot of prints are labelled as being 'first edition' implying a 'second' edition could follow- obviously it's not clear enough for some people, and I need to take that into consideration. I'll see how we can make that clearer going forward.
From here, t

[pandaderek]

Alright, everyone should be asking, before purchasing a Doyle print, if that's the "only edition print release of that concept?" Therefore, he can't pull this edition of this variant, edition of the 1st edition, whatever edition bullshit. If he prints anymore editions of the same concept, when he claims that the concept of the print will never be reprinted, then, you can all claim that your mothers were raped.

[alexfugazi]

But what if I told you- the only thing keeping you from having those prints is you.

im well aware im the thing keeping me from doing reprints. thats on purpose. something something ethics (sorry, i literally cant care about anything except spiderman right now).

reading all this, and i read it through carefully, i know its already very clear we operate in different realms and have very different end goals. you can tell me that i could make my model like yours, but it should be pretty clear that i actively chose the other path here. i get why you operate the way you do, but it aint for me. it would probably keep me up at night. thats not how i see this for myself and the people who support what i do.
its great your model makes more money than mine, its great you can sell 10,000 unliscenced simpsons prints vs my couple hundo sad asshole prints about death, its great that your fans come up to you and tell you how much they like the print of the thing they already liked, things are just great and congrats on all your success. but man, youve got people basically begging you for transparency and youre still just smearing the grease on your body to slip around it.

no foolin, i think your original content art prints are about 1000 times stronger and more interesting than any of the straight referential pop culture stuff that takes up 96% of your time, and id be legit curious what would come out of you if you just focused on original work for a year and put the other peoples toys away. because as much as youve told us how successful your company business model is, and how its better than all us other artists business model, youve taken alot of "shortcuts" with the content you sell.

anyways, im out.

That's fair. And I do so love doing those non-pop-culture stuff. And they do sell well. I'm just constantly getting commissioned to do pop-stuff, so I gotta go where the gigs are. Jurassic Galaxy is the first pop thing of mine that I released on my site first, as opposed to for a client or gallery- in a LOOOONNNG time. Thank you for the compliment on the art print stuff.

I will work on the transparency thing. As I stated above- I really didn't think anyone could misconstrue that my art wouldn't be possibly reprinted at some point.

As to the rest- 'shortcuts' implies that there is a line, or preferred order to things, when we both know there's a feeding frenzy at all levels of this industry from the gallery to the artist, to the commission groups to the flippers- licensed / unlicensed just doesn't matter to them. Guys like Olly and Mitchell and even Stout from time to time (and yes, you) have walked both sides of that fence, and do it well and do it often. If you're going to knock unlicensed art prints, I'd gladly take any of the Batman/ IKEA prints you have laying around- I really like those. This is a completely separate discussion, though.

My main point is this- too many great artists (far greater than me) cant' pay their bills, because they're stuck in a small niche, trying to appeal to a small collector's base. It's a niche they put themselves in, and it's not needed.

Thank you for your time.

[alexfugazi]

I am officially 100% done with this conversation. From now on if this comes up, I'm just going to link here.