Show your August pick-ups...

Lordstan · #1 08-07-2009, 10:50 PM

Well,
They aren't in hand, but are in the mail on their way.

Nos 61 and 62 out of 96 from my set.

Graig,
I've looked at your site and am humbled at your talent. I truly believe we all have some special gift and without question yours is holding a brush in your hands.
I think I can say I have not seen a portrait painted anywhere which is so alive and vibrant as that Mathewson. It's like he's standing there in his prime. Breathtaking.
I am acquainted with a few painters and have a general idea of the time and energy that goes into a painting like that. I'm pretty sure it's out of my league, price wise, at this point. I would love to have the money to get one like that of Lou Gehrig.
Have you considered doing prints/Lithos? I may not have thousands to spend on an original, but i'd be hard pressed not to spend $50-200 on a quality poster/print of that painting and a few others on your site.
How about a print pack for the Net54 crowd? You could make a card set? Something else for everyone to collect.

Mark

Kawika · #2 08-08-2009, 01:21 AM

The latest addition to the Manly-Man Cave is this circa 1992 "Conlon Collection" limited edition poster of old Honus. Picked it up on eBay and just got it back from the framer.

perezfan · #3 08-08-2009, 02:16 PM

Here's a 1930s Lamp that is signed on the reverse by artist, Sasha Heifetz. Interesting, in that a few years ago, REA featured the figural Pitcher portion only (without the lamp).

The bronzed baby shoes are those of Cy Young, who's beloved mother provided a detailed letter of provenance.

JK.... but at least the lamp description is accurate

GKreindler · #4 08-08-2009, 06:27 PM

Wow Mark, thank you so much for those amazing words. I really wish you could have seen the Mathewson painting in person, as the photo just doesn't do it justice. That's the truth.

In regards to reproductions, well, it's kind of a Pandora's box issue. The thing is, to make reproductions 'legally', there's a lot of red tape to get through. If I were to create an image of Mickey Mantle, I mean a one of a kind original painting, then it's totally fine for me to sell the image to a collector. However, once I start making reproductions of it, then it's used for commercial purposes. Once that happens, people like MLB, MLBPA, Mantle's estate, and even the photographers can come after you if they're not asked for their permission to use their products and of course, properly paid. They obviously have every right to, especially the photographers. We've (my agent and I) looked into getting the proper licenses to do prints and what not, but in the end, it just doesn't seem worthwhile. All of those licenses would also have to combine with the cost of printing as well, which in the end would be a king's ransom to get it done right.

At the same time, there are some camps who feel that having prints made of your originals can seriously devalue them. Clients will sometimes ask if we do prints because they want to know that they have something special, something that other people won't have. Personally, I'm on the fence about that aspect.

I would love it I could get the artwork out there to more people, as I know that there's such a large audience who would now be open to buying the artwork, which is definitely a good thing. But at the same time, it worries me.

When I walked around the National, I noticed a couple of booths where dealers were selling lithos and prints, some of which were specifically art companies, and others just regular memorabilia dealers. And I don't know, the prints just didn't do anything for me. Like, there was the Art of the Stars booth in particular, which had the works of Stephen Holland, Bill Purdom, Ron Stark and the like, all of which were prints. The proprietor (Dana) knows his stuff when it comes to art, but understands nothing about the game and how/why we cherish it so much. Granted, he's a good dude, but I feel like he has no emotional attachment to the game. He just wants to make a buck because he knows that these artists are talented, and that there's a demand for their work at such prices. I saw him talking with some collectors, and the pitches that he gave just made me nauseous. Then, I started to get a good look at what was on his walls. It just gave me the chills. I just thought of having my work up there with those guys, and kind of being lost in the shuffle. And that's definitely something I don't want. It's a lot like the stuff on goodsportsart.com. I've done two paintings for Bill Goff and he's sold some prints. He has all of the licenses to do so, and handles everything legally, which is definitely admirable. But in the end, I'm just another artist to him, and I guess if someone doesn't like one of the paintings I did, then they're another 20 for him/her to pick from other artists. And at the same time, not that this is a huge issue, but if I told you how much money I get for each print of his that's sold, I think you'd be livid.

Anywho, I don't really know where I was going with this. I guess I just wanted to voice my thoughts on the whole thing. Sorry if it turned into some obnoxious diatribe. In the end, I don't know if prints would be the route for us to go on, but for right now, I know we're going to stay away from it. However, we are hoping to put some sort of catalog together, or perhaps even have an artbook made, though I think I have to get more paintings done.

Back to the easel!

baseballart · #5 08-08-2009, 06:38 PM

Greg

The issue of reproducing original art work depicting famous players is subject of much litigation, statute law, constitutional protection, bullying and generally much confusion. Both Tiger Woods and The Three Stooges (ok, their estate) have taken great length to stamp out reproduction.

You may very well be on solid legal ground doing reproductions of your work, given the transformative talent, but the push back of a phalanx of lawyers is likely to wear you down.

Here's one article on it for the board from the California Lawyer magazine:

http://www.callawyer.com/cleStory.cf...=883760&evid=1

" Subsequent cases, however, have typically exalted the First Amendment over state law rights of publicity. The California Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment will trump the right of publicity as long as the defendant's use of the plaintiff's name, voice, or likeness involves "significant transformative elements" such that the defendant is not merely trading on the value of them. (Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Saderup Inc., 25 Cal. 4th 387 (2001), holding that charcoal drawings of the Three Stooges violated the right of publicity because of their lifelike nature and lack of transformative elements;"

GKreindler · #6 08-08-2009, 08:01 PM

Max,

Thanks so much for the reply to my long-windedness. I definitely remember the whole Woods vs. Rush thing, as I feel like it's become sort of the poster-child for artists who deal with intellectual property in their work.

In the end, you're right, the First Amendment would allow me to jump some of those hurdles, but I feel like the litigious nature of that beast could create a heap of trouble for my lawyer fees.

Actually, in speaking with my lawyer a few years back, he had talked to me about some of those "transformative elements", and much to my surprise (and chagrin) bringing someone/something to life with color was NOT one of them. If that doesn't work, then I don't know what would!!

If you don't mind me asking, has your wife ever run into issues like this? Or does she just do originals? Maybe I should get in touch with some of those guys like Holland and Stark, as I am most curious to see how other artists get around these legal issues. Also, I know for sure that they're plenty of people out there doing paintings/drawings of famous people and using them for commercial purposes (though I suppose they are able to fly under the radar).

Ladder7 · #7 08-08-2009, 08:47 PM

Already an amazing thread and so early in the month.

The Big Kahuna is marching in this image -somewhere. When I get it in-hand, I'll find the speedy little bugger.

Lordstan · #8 08-08-2009, 09:19 PM

Graig,
You are most welcome. I don't know enough about the technical aspects of painting/drawing like shadow and highlights, etc...BUT I do know what looks good. That Mathewson is just awesome.
Well, if you figure out a way to do prints.lithos put me down on a mailing list to get the brochure. Alternatively, if you ever decide to paint one like that of Lou Gehrig, and give it away really inexpensively, let me know. OR if I hit the Powerball, I'll be giving you a call.

Mark

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
January Pick ups	Archive	Football Cards Forum	4	02-06-2009 10:08 AM
WSSCA show May 31st-June 1st in the Seattle area (Shoreline)	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	16	06-03-2008 01:55 PM
3rd April Recent Pick Up's thread	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	46	05-01-2006 09:59 PM
2nd February Recent Pick Ups thread	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	58	02-23-2006 03:57 PM
3rd January recent pick ups thread	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	45	01-31-2006 10:13 AM