Show your August pick-ups...

[GKreindler]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[GKreindler]

When it comes down to it, I don't think you need to know anything about art to appreciate it. If it moves you in some way, then that's all you need (in my opinion, that is). I'm honored that I was able to get that out of you.

I'll definitely keep you (and everyone on Net54) in the loop regarding prints/books/catalog and all of that stuff, so no worries. And, I'll definitely be painting more shots of Gehrig from that day, as I have plenty of different angles to choose from. As to their sizes and pricing, well, I guess it will all remain to be seen...

[GrayGhost]

I really like the explanation of art "moving you" emotionally in some way. When I see detail like that in people's expressions, to me it is almost three dimensional like, almost like the subject is alive. The Matty has been used as my background on my computer for a time now, and it still amazes me how brilliant your work is Graig.

Some of us are destined to struggle along, others have God given talent that they have refined even more as they've gone along. Congratulations again on affecting so many people's love of Baseball with your outstanding work.

[GKreindler]

Thank you so much, Scott.

Ya know, a lot of people, whether they're friends of mine, or people that I meet for a second at a convention, will say that they 'know nothing about art', and I honestly think that it's a shame. Not that they 'know nothing', but that they think they 'know nothing'.

The fact is, they're certain people who can talk about art with a lot of intimidating words and ideas, stuff that they may have read in history or theory books, or have just managed to formulate on their own. And, I feel like those people can make art seem like it's only something for the overprivileged and well-read, and then to everyone else, art can become pretty intimidating.

So, when someone can look at my own work and say that it just makes them feel a certain way (whether they can describe the feeling or not), I feel like they know everything about art. I guess what I'm trying to say is that acknowledgment of a feeling is more important than a description of it. It's similar to the idea that you (and everyone on this board) collect memorabilia, baseball cards and the like because you have some sort of connection to the stuff. It hits you on a gut level (excuse the Woody Allen reference). Maybe it's because of the attachment to the game. Maybe it's because of the connection with fathers and grandfathers. Maybe it's because you love the way those old uniforms look. No matter, you were drawn into it because it makes you feel something.

I think that's all anyone needs to know about art, that it has the power to do that.

I'm off my soapbox now.