Topps Living Set

[javabuddha]

Originally Posted by Monty

In a fair and just world, Ms. Seto would have been paid her fee for first time printing rights to her artwork and then receive the originals back in order to keep or resale. This is the way it is done in the comic book world with the original pages and painted covers.

Thanks for the reply. I didn't realize that that is how it is done in the comic book world.

Also, I wish they would enable the "like" button on the forums.

[mfw13]

Need more HOFers/retired players, and fewer no-name active players.

Topps is theoretically releasing 156 cards a year....should be roughly 50% active stars, 25% HOFers/retirees, and 25% rookies.

[joejoemay]

Originally Posted by Monty

In a fair and just world, Ms. Seto would have been paid her fee for first time printing rights to her artwork and then receive the originals back in order to keep or resale. This is the way it is done in the comic book world with the original pages and painted covers.

I remember holding the original artwork at Topps, I don’t think they returned it.

[jdandns]

This week's artwork is phenomenal, even by her standards.


Kershaw with the #LivingSetBounce today, but still time for Yelich to get in on the action...

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by javabuddha

Thanks for the reply. I didn't realize that that is how it is done in the comic book world.

Also, I wish they would enable the "like" button on the forums.

They didn't always do it like that. A beloved artist named Jack Kirby (co-creator of many of the characters in the popular Marvel movies) was very poorly compensated for his work in relation to the incredible income it generated (and this was well before the juggernaut movies of today).

This injustice spurred younger creators in the 1980's, led by the fan-favorite Neal Adams, to rally around Kirby and insist Marvel Comics return to him whatever original art of his they had left (much of it had been stolen from the files in the intervening years). It became an industry standard to return the art to the artists as a result of that.

[VinnyH]

Shoutout to Jake for sending me a dozen nice/gradable Acuna LS cards. Well worth the wait and above and beyond the price for all the hoops he had to jump through to get them.

Vinny

[773cards]

I have a Facebook group dedicated to this amazing set. If any of you guys/gals are interested in joining I’ve included the link below.

Come chat, trade, watch highlights, speculate who’s next, win prizes, etc.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/162210024609452

[Monty]

Originally Posted by jdandns

They didn't always do it like that. A beloved artist named Jack Kirby (co-creator of many of the characters in the popular Marvel movies) was very poorly compensated for his work in relation to the incredible income it generated (and this was well before the juggernaut movies of today).

This injustice spurred younger creators in the 1980's, led by the fan-favorite Neal Adams, to rally around Kirby and insist Marvel Comics return to him whatever original art of his they had left (much of it had been stolen from the files in the intervening years). It became an industry standard to return the art to the artists as a result of that.

Even more reason Ms. Seto deserves to be getting her originals back. 2018 Topps shouldn't be operating under 40-50+ year old standards.

[jdandns]

Comics are a happy exception, but I'm pretty sure that in most lines of illustration-for-hire work, those who commission the work do get to keep it.

That said, Ms. Seto's work has sold these cards by the hundreds of thousands now, both ala a carte and in bundles at a what must be fine profit for Topps. Even though they may not be required to, once Topps has what they need from the original to make the cards (and for their archives), returning the art to Seto to do with what she wishes would engender them enormous good will.
Unfortunately but understandably, Topps likely values the possible sale price of these pieces higher than it does the good public relations that would result from returning the art.

(Why, just imagine what GAW could do with the originals!)

[byronscott4ever]

Is it possible the artist is being compensated well enough for the originals?

Maybe Topps will put the originals in a boxed product instead of painted gu baseballs?

[Monty]

Originally Posted by byronscott4ever

Is it possible the artist is being compensated well enough for the originals?

Maybe Topps will put the originals in a boxed product instead of painted gu baseballs?

If by "well compensated" you mean Topps shared a percentage of the profits with the Artist, then I would say that would be fair. Pretty sure that wasn't on the table though.

Putting those Living Set originals in a product like Transcendent would work. Not sure if the Living Set purists would agree since they wouldn't be made available to the majority of the collectors of LS.

Ms. Seto IS the Living Set and any extra benefit that could go her way would only strengthen that position. Returning the original art would be a great step in that direction.

[mwheeler27]

If I commission someone to create art for me, I’m keeping the art and doing with it what I please, for I paid for it when “I” had it made.

[Monty]

Originally Posted by mwheeler27

If I commission someone to create art for me, I’m keeping the art and doing with it what I please, for I paid for it when “I” had it made.

You may own the original art, but you don't own the copyright (unless you paid extra for those rights).

Here is a good read on the subject...

https://alj.artrepreneur.com/visual-art-ownership/

[bigsmooth]

Originally Posted by Monty

You may own the original art, but you don't own the copyright (unless you paid extra for those rights).



Here is a good read on the subject...



https://alj.artrepreneur.com/visual-art-ownership/

Just curious, why are you always beating the drum on Mayumi Seto’s compensation and benefits from Topps?

[Monty]

Originally Posted by bigsmooth

Just curious, why are you always beating the drum on Mayumi Seto’s compensation and benefits from Topps?

I have worked for Topps in the past and I know the standards of compensation from their point of view. With the Living Set being such a unique product that is solely driven by one artist, I am hoping that Topps went above and beyond what they have normally done for artists in past products.

Ms. Seto's art is the star of the show, and as a fellow artist and collector of this set, I want her to receive every benefit that this unique job has to offer and then some. I want to be collecting her art on these cards 10 years from now, and the more Topps can offer her to produce the amount of work that she is doing, the better the chance is she will be.

[mwheeler27]

Originally Posted by Monty

You may own the original art, but you don't own the copyright (unless you paid extra for those rights).

Here is a good read on the subject...

https://alj.artrepreneur.com/visual-art-ownership/

Wrong.

I’m not talking about a piece of art I purchased. Im talking about art I commissioned for specific purposes.

I do want to clarify what I said above, however...

When I stated I can do with them what I please, I meant in terms of sales, not in terms of amending/changing the art or its image.

[GKreindler]

Mwheeler27,

You’re getting into an area that is dealt with all the time in the publishing world. When an artist is commissioned to illustrate a book cover, the rights to use that image that he/she will create to use on that book cover is what the company is purchasing. The physical object (painting, drawing, etc.) still belongs to the artist. Owning the work of art and the rights to do something - anything - commercial with that work are two separate things.

If Seto made a deal in which Topps owns the originals and the rights to publish them however they see fit, I do hope she was compensated accordingly. If Topps approached somebody like Neal Adams (he was mentioned before, though I know he doesn’t do this kind of work), and asked him for that kind of all-encompassing deal, you can be sure that he’s gonna charge accordingly.

Graig

[mwheeler27]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

Mwheeler27,

You’re getting into an area that is dealt with all the time in the publishing world. When an artist is commissioned to illustrate a book cover, the rights to use that image that he/she will create to use on that book cover is what the company is purchasing. The physical object (painting, drawing, etc.) still belongs to the artist. Owning the work of art and the rights to do something - anything - commercial with that work are two separate things.

If Seto made a deal in which Topps owns the originals and the rights to publish them however they see fit, I do hope she was compensated accordingly. If Topps approached somebody like Neal Adams (he was mentioned before, though I know he doesn’t do this kind of work), and asked him for that kind of all-encompassing deal, you can be sure that he’s gonna charge accordingly.

Like I said above...If I have art commissioned for specific purposes, rest assured, I won’t be breaking any laws, copyright or otherwise, in relation to the art.

If what I do with the art generates significant profits, and the artist wants further compensation, be it cash, or original pieces, out of the goodness of my heart, I might be so inclined to grant his/her wish. But in no way, shape, or form will they be entitled to it.

What I’m trying to get at here is we might not want to assume what agreements are in place between two parties, like Topps and Ms. Seto. Nor should we assume the compensation structure. At times this feels like a witch hunt with pitchforks. Maybe it’s something very different and a lot more positive.

[kidfan9]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

Mwheeler27,

You’re getting into an area that is dealt with all the time in the publishing world. When an artist is commissioned to illustrate a book cover, the rights to use that image that he/she will create to use on that book cover is what the company is purchasing. The physical object (painting, drawing, etc.) still belongs to the artist. Owning the work of art and the rights to do something - anything - commercial with that work are two separate things.

If Seto made a deal in which Topps owns the originals and the rights to publish them however they see fit, I do hope she was compensated accordingly. If Topps approached somebody like Neal Adams (he was mentioned before, though I know he doesn’t do this kind of work), and asked him for that kind of all-encompassing deal, you can be sure that he’s gonna charge accordingly.

Graig

Your artwork...AWESOME!!! What brings you here?

[bigsmooth]

To make this even more confusing, doesn’t Getty own the copyright to the majority of the photographs used for these sketches? Seems like they have a horse in this race too.

[Monty]

Originally Posted by mwheeler27

If I commission someone to create art for me, I’m keeping the art and doing with it what I please, for I paid for it when “I” had it made.

Originally Posted by Monty

You may own the original art, but you don't own the copyright (unless you paid extra for those rights).

Here is a good read on the subject...

https://alj.artrepreneur.com/visual-art-ownership/

Originally Posted by bigsmooth

To make this even more confusing, doesn’t Getty own the copyright to the majority of the photographs used for these sketches? Seems like they have a horse in this race too.

Topps pays Getty for the right to use those images. Getty is well taken care of in that regard, their prices are not cheap.

[poppincurbs]

Originally Posted by bigsmooth

To make this even more confusing, doesn’t Getty own the copyright to the majority of the photographs used for these sketches?

I assume Topps/Getty have some sort of deal, I notice a lot of images they use on Donnie Baseball modern cards are straight from Getty.

[GKreindler]

Mwheeler27, the fact is, we DON’T know what deal Seto has in place with Topps. However, if we’re going by what other artists who have actually worked for them (hi, Monty) have said, we’re in a position to make informed guesses. But you’re right, we don’t know what the story is, and won’t unless she decides to make that public (which she is under no obligation to do).

And for what it’s worth, if you’re going to commission an artist and make it clear what all of your intentions are beyond owning the original, then what you’re doing is fine. And whatever they charge you is whatever they charge you, fair or not. However, if you commission something strictly to own and enjoy, and then later decide to monetize it, know that you don’t have the legal rights from the artist (not to mention the IP within) to do so - that has to be arranged separately. If you fail to do so and the artist becomes aware, well, as a friend of mine likes to say, you go down that hill, Custer.

Kidfan9, thanks so much! Long time listener, first time caller. Or something.

Bigsmooth, that is indeed the case. Getty (or other photo houses and/or photographers) do own the rights to those photos. They’re most likely compensated by Topps in order to use their images in these sets (even if the photos are used as reference for artwork). As are MLB, MLBPA, players estates and any other IPs that are represented within.

[mwheeler27]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

Mwheeler27, the fact is, we DON’T know what deal Seto has in place with Topps. However, if we’re going by what other artists who have actually worked for them (hi, Monty) have said, we’re in a position to make informed guesses. But you’re right, we don’t know what the story is, and won’t unless she decides to make that public (which she is under no obligation to do).

And for what it’s worth, if you’re going to commission an artist and make it clear what all of your intentions are beyond owning the original, then what you’re doing is fine. And whatever they charge you is whatever they charge you, fair or not. However, if you commission something strictly to own and enjoy, and then later decide to monetize it, know that you don’t have the legal rights from the artist (not to mention the IP within) to do so - that has to be arranged separately. If you fail to do so and the artist becomes aware, well, as a friend of mine likes to say, you go down that hill, Custer.

Yes, what I’m doing, (and will be doing), is perfectly fine. I took the steps necessary to ensure my position both now and in the future.

I think it’s safer to assume Topps did as well as apposed to the opposite. As a friend of mine likes to say, this isn’t their first rodeo.

[Malsk]

Sub 4000...you need to go back to the first few weeks to see sub 4000.

Gattis 3990
Mejia 5096
Martinez 4592