PDA

View Full Version : Custom T-Shirt....is it legal?




Sdashiki
Oct 17, 2006, 10:20 AM
Example:

TV or Movie (live action as I am 100% positive animation is copyrighted in this respect) screenshot, which I have traced in Illustrator. My original thought is a two color image trace, i think you know what I mean. One color being the tshirt itself, or the negative space.

Anyway, is it legal to then sell these t-shirts?

I only ask because Ive designed some stupid images with some text, that a few people I know would like. Can I actually sell "illustrator traced" stills from a movie?

on a side note, anyone got an recommendations for online custom t-shirt places?



yellow
Oct 17, 2006, 10:21 AM
No it is not.

calculus
Oct 17, 2006, 10:37 AM
I'd say it's a no...

Doctor Q
Oct 17, 2006, 12:29 PM
My guess (based on my total lack of legal training) is that you couldn't even doodle your own images based on a TV or movie character and sell shirts with that image, unless you first had a license from the show's owner. I'd expect that every character, and perhaps every frame of the show, would be a potential infringement if you made commercial use of it on your own.

Sdashiki
Oct 17, 2006, 12:33 PM
Hmmmm, that sucks.

I guess no one is gonna get any of me custom "Big Lebowski" shirts.

WORLD OF PAIN!


though on the topic of "fan art" you are incorrect. you can doodle anything you want and sell it, art is art. But when you say you are the original artist, you run into trouble.

I sell lots of paintings of cartoon shows, and because I paint them myself and make no claim to be the original character artist, have nothing legal to worry about. Someone asks me to paint a character, and I do it. How can that be illegal?

So I only wondered about the same thing with live action stuff and movies.

Tracing a movie frame in illustrator is sort of like painting by hand, as it isnt the original thing printed directly.....

Lau
Oct 17, 2006, 12:41 PM
I'd imagine the scale would be important as well if, as you say, that a few people you know would like them, and you're thinking of selling them to a few (as in, say, 5) friends for a bit of cash to cover the cost and the hassle, that you're unlikely to attract attention for it.

If you were to do the same thing, but make a website, charge enough for a decent profit, advertise, that kind of thing, you're very likely to get told to cease and desist.

It's technically illegal either way, but I think there's a difference between selling your t-shirts to a couple of local friends and starting to make profit out of it or doing it on a larger scale, and I think it's the latter that would be likely to get you in trouble.

Sdashiki
Oct 17, 2006, 12:44 PM
in the painting realm I use eBay as my advertisement space

and have done about 120+ individual paintings, every single one was a cartoon character. technically a copyrighted character.

but who is to tell me I cant paint what someone wants?

I doubt there is anything illegal whatsoever about fan art and selling it.



in terms of the tshirt thing, if people really liked them, id sell em on eBay. (in the best terms id be thinking like 4-5 a month)

cease and desist means ive got clout!

shecky
Oct 17, 2006, 12:55 PM
actually, creating fan-art for you own use is generally legal.

selling fan art is completely illegal. wether you get caught or not is another matter.

Sdashiki
Oct 17, 2006, 12:57 PM
so if you ask me to paint something for you, and I do, and I ask for compensation, I have done an illegal act?

shecky
Oct 17, 2006, 12:58 PM
so if you ask me to paint something for you, and I do, and I ask for compensation, I have done an illegal act?

if it is a painting of someone else's copyrighted character and they have not given you express permission to do so? yes.

Sdashiki
Oct 17, 2006, 01:09 PM
so the fact i spent 8hrs drawing (NOT tracing) and then painting this character, is worth nothing?


i am hard pressed to find anything about "fan-art" legality, other than it being a grey area.

id only see it becoming a problem if I was to create stuff that outsold the originals, which dont exist anyway. its not like you can go out and buy a painting of your favorite cartoon character, so you ask me and I do it for you.

honestly, does that truly seem "ILLEGAL" to you?

shecky
Oct 17, 2006, 01:14 PM
so the fact i spent 8hrs drawing (NOT tracing) and then painting this character, is worth nothing?

its irrelevant how much time you spent on it.

honestly, does that truly seem "ILLEGAL" to you?

it seems to me that if you are going to take something someone else created, redraw it, and try to sell it to make a profit then yes, it absolutely seems illegal. instead of creating fan-art and selling it, why not create something original instead?

there is tons of gray area on the legality of fan-art NOT for sale, but everything i have read says that selling fan art is totally illegal.

yellow
Oct 17, 2006, 01:17 PM
The fact remains, right or wrong, that the characters and their likenesses are copyrighted. So, even if you were a 6 year old and drew SpongeBob with a crayon, if you sold it, it's not legal. It's a violation of the copyright.

This was a big issue with Simpsons T-Shirts in the early-mid 90s. There were hundreds of knock offs circulating, to which Fox & MG served papers to just about everyone they could to stop the illegal sale of non-licensed images.

Sdashiki
Oct 17, 2006, 01:17 PM
ok cool then Ill let everyone know I cant paint for them anymore.

Sucks to be them, but oh well.



If someone wants something painted, who am I to tell them "Nope, sorry go ask Mr. Millionaire inventor of the character to find time in their busy schedule to paint one for you"?

I won't, Ill paint.

And we arent talking about the tshirt thing anymore, its about actual paint on canvas.

yellow
Oct 17, 2006, 01:19 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

For example, the copyright which subsists in relation to a Mickey Mouse cartoon prohibits unauthorized parties from distributing copies of the cartoon or creating derivative works which copy or mimic Disney's particular anthropomorphic mouse, but does not prohibit the creation of artistic works about anthropomorphic mice in general, so long as they are sufficiently different to not be imitative of the original.

T-Shirts are an example. It's still a ripped off image being sold for cash money. Doesn't matter if it's on cotton or on a napkin.

shecky
Oct 17, 2006, 01:23 PM
If someone wants something painted, who am I to tell them "Nope, sorry go ask Mr. Millionaire inventor of the character to find time in their busy schedule to paint one for you"?

I won't, Ill paint.

and you can do that if you want to, and odds are, you will not get caught selling 5 paintings a year or whatever it is. you did not ask about the ethics of what you are doing, you asked about the legality. Legally, its wrong.

ethically? my opinion as someone who has sold a lot of original art, is that if you cannot create you own original work to sell then you should not be picking up a brush to start with. but thats just my very biassed opinion, not the law.

Sdashiki
Oct 17, 2006, 01:23 PM
Again, I only cite the fact that I am providing a service for people.

I know its hard to imagine, but most people I run into cant paint well enough to paint for themselves.

So they ask me to paint something.

And I do it.

I cant paint for free as the materials, and id like to think my time, cost money.

Say you personally wanted a 16x20 painting of Homer Simpson's headshot.

You know that doesnt exist except MAYBE in poster form, which is flat and shiny and ugly to you.

So, you find me and ask me to paint Homer on some canvas for you. And I do for a fee.

You wouldnt do that if you really wanted something like that? Youd just lay down and say "Nah, id rather not have something I want"

shecky
Oct 17, 2006, 01:25 PM
Again, I only cite the fact that I am providing a service for people.

I know its hard to imagine, but most people I run into cant paint well enough to paint for themselves.

So they ask me to paint something.

And I do it.

I cant paint for free as the materials, and id like to think my time, cost money.

Say you personally wanted a 16x20 painting of Homer Simpson's headshot.

You know that doesnt exist except MAYBE in poster form, which is flat and shiny and ugly to you.

So, you find me and ask me to paint Homer on some canvas for you. And I do for a fee.

You wouldnt do that if you really wanted something like that? Youd just lay down and say "Nah, id rather not have something I want"

drug dealers provide a service to people as well.

Sdashiki
Oct 17, 2006, 01:25 PM
and you can do that if you want to, and odds are, you will not get caught selling 5 paintings a year or whatever it is. you did not ask about the ethics of what you are doing, you asked about the legality. Legally, its wrong.

ethically? my opinion as someone who has sold a lot of original art, is that if you cannot create you own original work to sell then you should not be picking up a brush to start with. but thats just my very biassed opinion, not the law.


i am NOT the type of artists to paint 100s of stuff in my stuffy studio, trek to the local art show and hope someone buys a couple.

i only paint when someone asks me to. 90% of the time, its a cartoon character.

other times its something "modern and abstract", but they give me some guidelines and I go to work.

i just dont see the value in painting and painting and painting with nothing to show for it but a bunch of paintings in my closet.


and if it bothers you that every painting I have done has been sold, I am sorry. I just dont paint stuff that isnt for my own self, for fun anymore. Im too busy for that.

Sdashiki
Oct 17, 2006, 01:25 PM
drug dealers provide a service to people as well.

guess you dont want a painting.

but sure, group me in with drug dealers.

thats truly fair.

/sigh


and I think dealers are providing GOODs and not SERVICES

calculus
Oct 17, 2006, 01:27 PM
I'm confused by this...

You asked whether what you are doing is legal. The consensus seems to be it's not.

Would you feel better if we said it's legal?

Sdashiki
Oct 17, 2006, 01:29 PM
id feel better if someone would stop and think...

you want something painted, are you going to just say you can never have one because the subject is something "copyrighted", or find someone who might paint it for you?

regardless of what the painting is of, who is anyone in the world to tell YOU what you can and can not have painted and hung on your wall.

if i was painting 100s of characters and selling them at a local art show, YES thats totally and utterly disgusting and probably 100% illegal no matter how you cut it.

my personal scenario is that I dont paint until someone says what they want painted, then I goto work (after payment of course).

iGav
Oct 17, 2006, 01:30 PM
you can doodle anything you want and sell it, art is art. But when you say you are the original artist, you run into trouble.

Sorry, but that is incorrect if the 'doodle' is of a copyrighted image.

Tracing a movie frame in illustrator is sort of like painting by hand, as it isnt the original thing printed directly.....

But you are using an original composition to create your 'art', even if you interpreted the original composition (i.e. you don't actually trace it, merely copy it), if it's of a sufficient likeness then you could potentially be infringing on the copyright of that particular film.

Then, if you decided to use a phrase from that film... for example, you trace the image of Jack Nicholson from The Shining, then add 'Here's Johnny' underneath it, then you're also likely infringing on that as well, and probably Jack Nicholson's likeness too.

How can that be illegal?

Because you do not own the rights to the 'image' or 'likeness' of the characters/persons in question. That's what potentially makes what you are doing illegal.

yellow
Oct 17, 2006, 01:31 PM
id feel better if someone would stop and think...

you want something painted, are you going to just say you can never have one because the subject is something "copyrighted", or find someone who might paint it for you?

regardless of what the painting is of, who is anyone in the world to tell YOU what you can and can not have painted and hung on your wall.

If you don't want to hear the answer, then it begs the question, why did you ask? :confused:

Copyright is based on itellectual property, which no matter what, you don't own.

Sdashiki
Oct 17, 2006, 01:34 PM
Again I am NOT painting and selling, I am painting on commission.

and we are not talking about live action right now, just cartoons, paint and canvas.


arent you all saying that its just as illegal for me to paint it as it is for someone to ask/want it painted in the first place?

iGav
Oct 17, 2006, 01:37 PM
Again I am NOT painting and selling, I am painting on commission.

And selling it. :rolleyes: :p

and we are not talking about live action right now, just cartoons, paint and canvas.

Cartoon characters are copyright too.

arent you all saying that its just as illegal for me to paint it as it is for someone to ask/want it painted in the first place?

No, it's far more illegal for you to copy it. Because it's YOU that is potentially breaking the law.

Flowbee
Oct 17, 2006, 01:38 PM
ok cool then Ill let everyone know I cant paint for them anymore.

Sucks to be them, but oh well.


When I lived in Washington DC, there was an artist who would display his paintings at a local farmer's market every weekend... They were all portraits of Bert from Sesame Street. I'm pretty sure he made a decent living from this, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Jim Henson Productions or the C.T.W. couldn't shut him down any time they wanted.

You would do well to expand your repertoire beyond painting pictures of copyrighted cartoon characters.

Sdashiki
Oct 17, 2006, 01:43 PM
Sigh.


Someone comes up to me and says I want a Simpsons painting.

WTF am I supposed to do, say no?

I dont think so.


When i say I am not painting and SELLING i mean I am not creating a body of work to sell.

Someone pays me, THEN i paint for them. They arent "buying" anything but my commission. I have ZERO completed paintings for sale, ever.

If people are going to rip me apart for painting for others who want me to paint for them, I dont know what to say.

yellow
Oct 17, 2006, 01:51 PM
Holy crap, I'm out. :rolleyes:

iGav
Oct 17, 2006, 01:55 PM
Someone comes up to me and says I want a Simpsons painting.

WTF am I supposed to do, say no?

Basically yes, otherwise you risk exposing yourself to legal action.

Someone pays me, THEN i paint for them. They arent "buying" anything but my commission. I have ZERO completed paintings for sale, ever.

It makes no difference, if you are reproducing an image that is copyright, then the likelihood is, is that you're breaking the law.

If people are going to rip me apart for painting for others who want me to paint for them, I dont know what to say.

No one is ripping you apart, stop being so melodramatic. ;) :p

Though that said... if I ask you to rob a bank for me (which I will of course obviously pay you for) and you give me all the proceeds, will you do that for me??? ;) :D

Sdashiki
Oct 17, 2006, 01:55 PM
Me too.

IN closing:

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/8390/20x24jthmam5.jpg
http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/9779/20x24simpsonsailboatyl7.jpg
http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/7639/16x20angrymonkeysuit6gv.jpg

yellow
Oct 17, 2006, 02:04 PM
Nice sailboat from The Simpsons.

I'd probably pay you for that one for my office and Simpsons paraphernalia collection.

Sdashiki
Oct 17, 2006, 02:05 PM
see.

u got an idea, let me paint it.

:D

notjustjay
Oct 17, 2006, 02:09 PM
Look man, you have to stop taking it personally.

You asked if what you were doing is illegal.

The answer is YES.

Irrespective of your good intention, or who originally commissioned the work, or how much it cost you in time or money, or how much you're selling it for. It is still illegal.

Will you get caught? Probably not.

Is it stupid? Kinda.

Should you stop painting them? That's up to you.

But is it illegal nonetheless? Yes.

So is speeding. Speeding is absolutely, 100% against the law. It's right there in black and white. But I can't think of a single person who has never driven faster than the speed limit. I do it every day. Still doesn't make it legal. Just don't get caught.

This answer applies in the music space as well. If I ask you to make me a wedding video or DVD and I want Celine Dion in the background, unless you secure music rights with ASCAP, it is illegal. Heck if you even just PLAY Celine Dion music at your wedding banquet as background music for your slideshow, it is technically a public performance that is illegal without securing the appropriate rights.

But 99% of people I know have video slideshows with pop music in them. Heck, YouTube is crammed full of them.

Is it illegal? Yes.

Will people be prosecuted? Highly, highly unlikely. But it could happen.

Should you care? That's up to you.

Thanatoast
Oct 17, 2006, 02:59 PM
Sdashiki, this is copyright law we're talking about here. The stuff the RIAA and Disney thrives off of. Even whistling the Mickey Mouse Club theme song can get you a lawsuit.

Definitely illegal. Stupid law? Probably, but still illegal.

Flowbee
Oct 17, 2006, 03:12 PM
Sdashiki, this is copyright law we're talking about here. The stuff the RIAA and Disney thrives off of. Even whistling the Mickey Mouse Club theme song can get you a lawsuit.

Definitely illegal. Stupid law? Probably...

Until you create something that someone else decides to make money off of by copying...

Doctor Q
Oct 17, 2006, 03:24 PM
I think we are going in circles. Maybe, Sdashiki, you are really asking about the merits of the copyright laws, not whether they apply. That subject is one people debate about all the time.

You seem to be saying that if people here are correct then you can't do these commissioned jobs based on suggested well-known characters, and that you resent it. That's understandable, but nobody has mentioned another possibility: to pay a license fee when you use a licensed character's image, and pass that cost on to the client. If they want a generic anthropomorphic mouse, fine. If they want a drawing inspired by Mickey Mouse, that costs a little more.

Perhaps my example is bad, because Disney is fairly picky about uses of their images, but I know that for certain types of copyrighted works there are clearinghouses set up to manage royalties and license fees. You essentially buy a one-time use license for something, for whatever it costs, and they take care of passing it along to the copyright holder. Then you are good to go, selling your works within the copyright laws.

Lau
Oct 17, 2006, 03:57 PM
Good points there, Doctor Q.

I think you have to look at it like this someone's willing to pay you to paint a picture, and they want something that looks like a well known cartoon character. The reason they want a picture of that character is because the person or company that created it has spent a lot of time creating it, and a lot of money on creating and marketing it, and that's what's made it well known and that's why people are willing to pay you for doing your paintings.

If you were just painting a simple sailing boat like the link you provided, it's unlikely anyone would buy it. The reason that it's desirable is because a company has made the show popular, and because of the work they did in making the characters (and style) popular. That's the reason for licensing fees it's a way of paying back the original creator for the work they've done to make the work you've done more desirable.

Now whether you choose to worry about it is up to you. I've made t-shirts with hand drawn characters on them for individual gifts, and I personally don't have a problem with that because they're just silly little things I do as one-offs maybe once or twice a year, and I wouldn't do them for money or very often. As far as my morals go, I would always try and buy the original t-shirt if possible if it was from a less well established creator rather than making my own one.

As other people have said, it's probably unlikely that you'll get caught, but the larger scale you do it on, and the more money you make, the more likely that is, and perhaps it's more how far you would want to go morally.

Sdashiki
Oct 17, 2006, 04:24 PM
last two posts.

best two posts.


(SLC Punk Reference FTW!)

macdon401
Oct 17, 2006, 04:33 PM
...first if someone came to me wanting a huge Homer Simpson for their wall I'd run and fast, but in all seriousness ...it's a few lousy painting's, Ok get moral, it's illeagal...live with it ...god the guy isn't mass producing Yoda's on canvas!
...and just as an aside and to keep the pot stirred...what about Warhol's
Tomato soup can...did Campbell's ever sue him????

just a thought for all the goody two shoes out there!
R

decksnap
Oct 17, 2006, 05:31 PM
Me too.

IN closing:

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/8390/20x24jthmam5.jpg
http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/9779/20x24simpsonsailboatyl7.jpg
http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/7639/16x20angrymonkeysuit6gv.jpg

As I read this thread I thought at the least you were bringing some of your own creativity into your paintings. But these are just like... reproductions. You could feel content morally to sell these based on materials cost and time spent, but not on any higher value derived from artistic content. Because that value doesn't come from you.

iMeowbot
Oct 17, 2006, 05:50 PM
As other people have said, it's probably unlikely that you'll get caught, but the larger scale you do it on, and the more money you make, the more likely that is, and perhaps it's more how far you would want to go morally.

And whatever happens, steer clear of Disney characters (http://www.snopes.com/disney/wdco/daycare.asp).

Ish
Oct 17, 2006, 06:11 PM
And whatever happens, steer clear of Disney characters (http://www.snopes.com/disney/wdco/daycare.asp).

This happened in our local hospital too. The staff had painted some Disney characters on the walls of the children's ward and they ended up having to be painted over.

Lau
Oct 17, 2006, 06:24 PM
As I read this thread I thought at the least you were bringing some of your own creativity into your paintings. But these are just like... reproductions. You could feel content morally to sell these based on materials cost and time spent, but not on any higher value derived from artistic content. Because that value doesn't come from you.

I must admit, I thought they'd be more along the lines of Ron English (http://www.popaganda.com/)'s stuff that, although using copyrighted images, twists them to make his own message.

And whatever happens, steer clear of Disney characters (http://www.snopes.com/disney/wdco/daycare.asp).

It's interesting that the nursery went on to be allowed to use other companies figures, presumably planting fond memories of Hanna-Barbera characters into the minds of hundreds of future consumers. :D It's why I think companies could choose to be a bit lax on some copyright images, as it would benefit both them and the consumer.

ATD
Oct 17, 2006, 06:55 PM
And whatever happens, steer clear of Disney characters (http://www.snopes.com/disney/wdco/daycare.asp).


I have done business with Disney... it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. They are extremely protective of their brand.

dogbone
Oct 17, 2006, 07:22 PM
...you're very likely to get told to cease and desist.


I've always been confused by this expression. I mean if you have 'ceased' then you can't 'desist' as well. Maybe it should be "cease or desist, take your pick".

Doctor Q
Oct 17, 2006, 07:47 PM
I've always been confused by this expression. I mean if you have 'ceased' then you can't 'desist' as well. Maybe it should be "cease or desist, take your pick".Making us think that through is cruel or unusual punishment!

On second thought... maybe desist in that phrase means "and don't start doing it again!!!"

iMeowbot
Oct 17, 2006, 07:56 PM
I've always been confused by this expression. I mean if you have 'ceased' then you can't 'desist' as well. Maybe it should be "cease or desist, take your pick".
But that would be common sense. If your landshark tells me to cease, my landshark will notice that I can do that, start up again tomorrow, and still have complied with the request. If yours tells me simply to desist, mine will tell me "well, that could be taken to mean that they want you to abstain in the future, so carry on with work in progress!"

dogbone
Oct 17, 2006, 08:15 PM
But that would be common sense. If your landshark tells me to cease, my landshark will notice that I can do that, start up again tomorrow, and still have complied with the request. If yours tells me simply to desist, mine will tell me "well, that could be taken to mean that they want you to abstain in the future, so carry on with work in progress!"


I can assure you I'd never post to MR without doing some research first. And I have found no definitions of 'desist' that implied future action other than what is ordinarily implied by 'stop'. But maybe this concept of reference to future action is somehow conveyed in a touchy feely sort of way. Like the difference between 'grey' and 'gray' I always felt that 'gray' was a slightly lighter shade.

ps, nice av.

vanzskater272
Oct 17, 2006, 08:15 PM
I think you should just keep making paintings for the people who want them. And make those shirts for your friends.Even if it's illegal I doubt that you will get caught. But you should watch out if you sell shirts on ebay.

Sdashiki
Oct 17, 2006, 08:36 PM
i am going to make a tshirt or two for myself only. if a friend likes it, too bad

i laff in their face!

but tell them how to make their own.

thanks for the feedback peeplz.


:o

as fer me paintin', i only charge the materials, the shipping and my time. for what its worth, customer testimonials say they got a good deal. there is no glory in paying your bills on "hard work". artistic value, none, technical value, some. do i care? nah, its just some money here n there. and i dont go crazy bored. :P

iMeowbot
Oct 17, 2006, 08:38 PM
I can assure you I'd never post to MR without doing some research first. And I have found no definitions of 'desist' that implied future action other than what is ordinarily implied by 'stop'. But maybe this concept of reference to future action is somehow conveyed in a touchy feely sort of way. Like the difference between 'grey' and 'gray' I always felt that 'gray' was a slightly lighter shade.
Yes, it's exactly that squishy part they are trying to avoid! Even mundane agreements often end up defining such basic terms as "you" to avoid disputes over who you are :D

dogbone
Oct 17, 2006, 08:55 PM
@iMeowbot

Never more eloquently put than Clinton's immortal line..."It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"

bluedevil14
Oct 17, 2006, 10:02 PM
i dont know how legal your things is
but i used www.cafepress.com (good site btw) to make a shirt that had the quiznos logo (dont ask) on it
and within 3 hrs of making it i recived an email saying i was violating copyright law and if i continued to prodoce the shirt quiznos may take action
so i just made one then closed everything up. and i make sure to wear it everytime i go to quiznos.... just my little way of sticking it to the man

XNine
Oct 17, 2006, 10:24 PM
sdashiki, how much would you charge for a hentai styled pic of Jessica Rabbit and a tentacle monster? :D

RedTomato
Oct 18, 2006, 04:46 AM
Go for it if you want to, just be aware of the risks, and maybe engage in some prudent risk avoidance.

Reading the link to the nurseries / disney thing, I noticed that the nurseries were for-profit businesses, hence they were stealing disney's images to help them generate greater profits.

An old artist friend of mine, David Haslam (who I'm no longer in contact with), painted an amazing image of the Last Supper, with the central image of Jesus replaced by a character that looked a bit like Noddy (but with some differences i.e. a tie instead of a neckscarf etc).

He got his ass sued into the ground by the very expensive lawyers engaged by the holders of the Noddy copyright.

Some examples of their nasty tactics - they applied to the court for a pre-emptive order to take into possession ALL his artwork - 'to check for copyright violations' - with NO guarantees as to how well it would be looked after or when it would be returned.

I think they also applied for some sort of binding order over his house 'in case he did not have the monies to pay any penalty that might be applied should the judge find him guilty'. (I'm not clear on the details of this one)

Also I think they applied for an order to request that all his future artwork for perpetuity had to be pre-approved by them before release or sale (!)

Basically all sorts of nasty bollocks. I remember reading a folder full of letters from them and their lawyers, and it was a years long, ongoing nightmare for David to deal with this *****. In the end, the case never went to court, but I think David had to accept the destruction of this particular artwork.

It got into the national UK papers a few times, who were appalled by the savagery of it all. I can't find any article that discusses him in particular (this was before the age of the internet), but here is one rather long article on copyright in art that mentions him in passing.

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,11710,1598008,00.html

Snark
Oct 18, 2006, 09:56 AM
Again I am NOT painting and selling, I am painting on commission.

and we are not talking about live action right now, just cartoons, paint and canvas.


arent you all saying that its just as illegal for me to paint it as it is for someone to ask/want it painted in the first place?
You're trying to split hairs that can't be split legally. It doesn't matter what you want the law to allow or think it should allow, it is what it is.

If you keep selling, there's a good chance you'll stay under the radar. There's also some chance you'll catch the wrong person's eye and get your patties spanked; not hard probably, but spanked nonetheless. It's a calculated risk that people take all the time.

Snark

macaddicted
Oct 18, 2006, 01:48 PM
I'm coming to this a little late but I will give you an example from my professional life.

I worked for an advertising specialty product manufacturer, a competitor to 3M's sticky pads in the ad specialty industry (ASI, PPAI for those who want to know). Another competitor had put together a nice catalog, and my client had a penchant for copying things he liked so he thought he would copy the catalog. I warned him that doing so risked a look-and-feel lawsuit, which is exactly what happened. He was sent a cease and desist letter and subsequently sued and lost over $75,000 in fees and penalties. The ironic thing is that we ended up going back to my original design for the "corrected" catalog.

Copyright law is there for a reason, and unfortunately Sdashiki what you are doing is one of the reasons. Yes, you can fly below the radar and continue to do what you do. And the chance that you would be caught, much less punished for it is unlikely. But you must realize that what you are doing is contrary to copyright law because even though your design may be original it is based on someone else's intellectual property.

As an example say you were to create a line of unique characters for paining on children's walls. Say they became popular in your region and you were receiving requests from others specifically for your characters and it became a major part of your painting. What would your reaction be if you found out that another painter was painting your characters for less money for other people? Would you think it was great that someone else was making use of your ideas for their own profit? Or would you want to stop them?

It is an old, old argument, the freedom of ideas versus the ability of the originator of the idea's ability to limit how it will be used. Just know that because you don't like the law doesn't mean you can break it without risking penalties.

macaddicted
Oct 18, 2006, 01:53 PM
I've always been confused by this expression. I mean if you have 'ceased' then you can't 'desist' as well. Maybe it should be "cease or desist, take your pick".

Cease: Stop doing what you're doing.

Desist: Once you've stopped don't even think of doing it again.

Sdashiki
Oct 18, 2006, 02:49 PM
So who wants a painting?

:D :D :D :D

mariahlullaby
Oct 18, 2006, 03:29 PM
It's illegal to use even a celebrity's name most of the time, and it's definitely illegal to use the image of anything copyrighted (i.e. a cartoon).

I design a lot of t-shirts for a Mariah Carey fan organization, and the place that makes the shirts have refused to make:
-A shirt with "Mariah Carey" written on it (I can put Mariah, MC, etc, but not her full name)
-Anything with her photo
-Anything with quotes from lyrics, etc
-Anything that remotely looks like her logo
-Her signature (from an album cover)
-A drawn image/cartoon of M

Since then, I've shown them I have permission (I don't have a legal notice, but I showed them some emails that convinced them), and they'll let me use her name, signature now. Still, photos are tricky because they're usually copyrighted by the photographer, not the artist.

notjustjay
Oct 18, 2006, 03:48 PM
I'll chime in with a few more thoughts from my experience and perspective as a different sort of artist. I do video editing. One interesting side effect is that sometimes I will hear a piece of music and immediately conjure up imagery in my mind to go alongside it.

I also volunteer with a children's residential summer camp. If you've ever been (or had) a child at camp you know that these places are full of memories and often life-changing emotional impact.

So one day I hear an instrumental piece from a fairly well-known artist and immediately in my head I see a video telling the story of camp. Just for fun, that's exactly what I put together. I edited together a montage of clips from throughout a week of camp, starting from the moment you drive away from home and ending with a boy waving goodbye and a rear view of a car pulling away back toward the city. All of this was timed in synch with the song, just as I had pictured it in my mind.

The video was a hit with camp staff and kids I showed it to -- some were moved to tears. Copyright law, however, prohibits you from anything beyond showing it privately in people's homes. I couldn't make copies for friends, give it away as a promotional item, sell it, play it at camp fairs or info sessions, or even play it at camp itself!

Our camp registrar also worked for an entertainment lawyer, so we caught a lucky break -- we were able to negotiate with the publisher to get limited distribution rights. We were allowed to make up to 300 copies over the span of 3 years, and the licensing cost us about $75 for the one song. No broadcast rights, though, including website downloads.

Every time I hear that song I still picture in my mind all those camp images.
Which is, of course, exactly why they want you to pay -- emotional association is a powerful thing, and commercial firms will pay big money to exploit it. I'm sure they also want to screen and control the usage of their work so that they don't become associated with anything they don't approve of.

zero2dash
Oct 19, 2006, 11:40 AM
AFAIK most copyright laws apply to making any profit off of someone else's work, whether you sell the items (or in the Disney case, it brings you more profit despite the fact that you weren't selling counterfeit merchandise).

If you sell any works of art that someone else created - it's against the law.

Making your own shirt and wearing it or giving some away to friends - I don't think they're going to bust your balls about. That's more along the lines of 'being a fan' than 'trying to make a buck'.

I made a front and back DDR shirt of song banners (used from Stepmania bumper packs) just as a fan and I never once thought "I'm gonna be in big trouble for this". I've had a few people ask me where I got the shirt and I just tell them how I put it together and say "make your own if you want".

--just my two cents :)

Josh
Oct 19, 2006, 12:07 PM
Sigh.


Someone comes up to me and says I want a Simpsons painting.

WTF am I supposed to do, say no?

I dont think so.


When i say I am not painting and SELLING i mean I am not creating a body of work to sell.

Someone pays me, THEN i paint for them. They arent "buying" anything but my commission. I have ZERO completed paintings for sale, ever.

If people are going to rip me apart for painting for others who want me to paint for them, I dont know what to say.

I honestly believe what you are doing is perfectly legal.

Heck, go to any carnival, sit down to get a charicature drawn and tell them you want to be drawn next to Chuck Norris.

They will draw you next to Chuck Norris, sell it to you, and everything is perfectly legal.

I can draw pictures of Steve Jobs all day long and sell them on tshirts.

Soo my character resembles Steve? Lots of people look a like.

You can perfectly well create vector art of famous figures and legally sell them!

Happens all the time and is nothing new. A person's likeness is not a copyrighted thing. When you draw it, the drawn artwork IS copyrighted...TO YOU.

Sorry to the opposition, but that is just the way it is.

Check out the same thing happening here:http://www.spreadshirt.com/shop.php?sid=19781

Chuch Norris isn't receiving a penny for those shirts, and it is perfectly legal for people to make them and sell them.

yellow
Oct 19, 2006, 12:25 PM
I hope you're being facetious.. because if you're not, you're very much wrong.

Just because people do it doesn't mean it's legal.

People download music for free from kazaa all day long, but it's not legal.
Your 'it's legal because people do it' argument is slightly flawed.

Josh
Oct 19, 2006, 12:27 PM
I hope you're being facetious.. because if you're not, you're very much wrong.

Sorry, but no, I am not.

Show me the law that states I cannot draw a picture that looks similar to you, and sell it.

Further, I've provided a perfect example of this in action.

Want more? Check out the majority of things on http://www.cafepress.com

Doctor Q
Oct 19, 2006, 12:28 PM
I honestly believe what you are doing is perfectly legal.Are you basing that on an authoritative source or on the fact that the Chuck Norris shirt business and others like it haven't been shut down? The latter doesn't show that it's legal.

Josh
Oct 19, 2006, 12:29 PM
Are you basing that on an authoritative source or on the fact that the Chuck Norris shirt business and others like it haven't been shut down? The latter doesn't show that it's legal.

Are you suggesting that in the 3 pages of personal opinion on this topic, you or the side you support has provided legal evidence of the contrary?

I haven't seen it.

iMeowbot
Oct 19, 2006, 12:49 PM
A real person's likeness is protected under many locales' privacy or civil rights laws. Public figures, and the use of private individuals' likenesses in reporting, are usually exempt. This is why, for example, photographers ask people for releases. The Chuck Norris example would generally be okay, but possibly not if he's portrayed as a particular character.

Fictional characters can be covered under copyright or trademark protection, or both. Many of the old Popeye strips and cartoons have fallen into the public domain copyright-wise in some countries, but the characters are still Hearst trademarks.

Doctor Q
Oct 19, 2006, 12:52 PM
Are you suggesting that in the 3 pages of personal opinion on this topic, you or the side you support has provided legal evidence of the contrary?Nope. I'm asking because I don't know and I'd like to understand more about it. If you know a source of legal information about this issue, written in layperson's terms, I'd like to read it. If not, then we've got mixed opinions, and that's fine. In the meantime, my "educated guess" opinions are based on what I've read in the past.

barrysfarm
Oct 19, 2006, 12:55 PM
http://www.spreadshirt.com/shop.php?sid=19781

I used to work for the company who made this site, and in this case it's legal, because chuck norris (and his lawyers) signed off on this specific site. He also get's 30% of the profits.

yellow
Oct 19, 2006, 02:21 PM
Show me the law that states I cannot draw a picture that looks similar to you, and sell it.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Publicity

The Right of Publicity prevents the unauthorized commercial use of an individual's name, likeness, or other recognizable aspects of one's persona. It gives an individual the exclusive right to license the use of their identity for commercial promotion.

LethalWolfe
Oct 19, 2006, 02:24 PM
I honestly believe what you are doing is perfectly legal.

Heck, go to any carnival, sit down to get a charicature drawn and tell them you want to be drawn next to Chuck Norris.

They will draw you next to Chuck Norris, sell it to you, and everything is perfectly legal.

I can draw pictures of Steve Jobs all day long and sell them on tshirts.

Soo my character resembles Steve? Lots of people look a like.

You can perfectly well create vector art of famous figures and legally sell them!

Happens all the time and is nothing new. A person's likeness is not a copyrighted thing. When you draw it, the drawn artwork IS copyrighted...TO YOU.

Sorry to the opposition, but that is just the way it is.

Check out the same thing happening here:http://www.spreadshirt.com/shop.php?sid=19781

Chuch Norris isn't receiving a penny for those shirts, and it is perfectly legal for people to make them and sell them.
"Happens all the time" is not the same thing as "perfectly legal." For example, many (most?) wedding videographers include pop music in their videos (typically songs requested by the clients) even though they didn't license the music. That's illegal, but they do it anyway (either because they don't know or don't care).

Right to Privacy/Right to Publicity is one thing that makes it illegal for someone to draw an image of Chuck Norris (or myself for that matter) and sell it w/o permission. Another example is if I'm going to interview someone for a documentary I'll have them sign a release form that gives the filmmakers permission to use that persons voice, image, etc., in the film.

Of course there are exemptions (Fair Use, satire, parody, etc.,), but if you are doing anything commercial then your options quickly become very limited.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no their own facts. ;)


Lethal

Sdashiki
Oct 19, 2006, 02:30 PM
in my personal "problem" i am talking cartoons only, I suck at still life.

and its almost all been exclusively ONE cartoon in particular that has only a cult following.

people ask for all types of cartoons, but the most work I do is one show and one show only.

i wish to expand into more, but if people dont ask for it, how can i?


anyway, im appreciating all this back and forth, though I sincerely doubt we will EVER come to any true conclusion.

google for questions like this and there is only half-cocked answers, even from legal sites dealing with copyright. there is nothing specific to "fan-art" which is I guess what my work falls under.

and again, I dont paint and then sell, I paint ONLY what a client asks and then pays for. i just cant see myself painting image after image and just letting them pile up while I look for a customer. commission is the ONLY way to paint! :P (when u arent in it for the glory)

Doctor Q
Oct 19, 2006, 02:56 PM
It's legal to draw a cartoon of a politician, give him/her a word balloon saying "Vote for me - I'm not as slimy as the other guy!", and sell it to a newspaper, so it's not the case that all drawings of all people require their permission, even for something sold commercially. The Cornell quote doesn't cover that exception, so there's more to it than meets the eye.

What's the difference between the political cartoon and Chuck Norris T-shirts? Is it that politicians aren't also marketing their names and likenesses for profit (that's debatable)? Is it that some public figures are more public than others? Does the purpose of the cartoon matter? Could that newspaper cartoonist sell the same political cartoon on a T-shirt? What if it didn't have the word balloon? What if it was a political comment on Chuck Norris with a cartoon of him?

We clearly need to sign up more MacRumors members who are professional fan art lawyers. Put the word out!

yellow
Oct 19, 2006, 03:06 PM
It's legal to draw a cartoon of a politician, give him/her a word balloon saying "Vote for me - I'm not as slimy as the other guy!", and sell it to a newspaper, so it's not the case that all drawings of all people require their permission, even for something sold commercially. The Cornell quote doesn't cover that exception, so there's more to it than meets the eye.

Actually, I don't think it is..

Under the Lanham Act:

http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001125----000-.html

1125. False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 22 > SUBCHAPTER III > 1125 Prev | Next

1125. False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

How Current is This?

(a) Civil action
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities,
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
(2) As used in this subsection, the term “any person” includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
(3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this chapter for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional.


But I'm no lawyer. Legalese makes my eyes cross...

LethalWolfe
Oct 19, 2006, 03:27 PM
i wish to expand into more, but if people dont ask for it, how can i?

Make some original art, maybe? Look around your area for anyone that needs graphic art type work? You can't expect to branch out if you don't show people that you can branch out.

anyway, im appreciating all this back and forth, though I sincerely doubt we will EVER come to any true conclusion.
No, the conclusion seems pretty clear. You are violating copyright law. Whether one believes the current state of the law is just or not is, of course, completely up to debate though.

google for questions like this and there is only half-cocked answers, even from legal sites dealing with copyright. there is nothing specific to "fan-art" which is I guess what my work falls under.
Commercial vs. non-commerical is a better way to look at it. Getting paid to draw the monkey from Family Guy is a commercial endeavor. You are using someone else's IP w/o permission to generate money for yourself. That violates copyright law. You are also depriving the copyright holder of income because instead of buying an officially licensed image of the monkey from Family Guy your client is buying a bootleg image from you.

and again, I dont paint and then sell, I paint ONLY what a client asks and then pays for. i just cant see myself painting image after image and just letting them pile up while I look for a customer. commission is the ONLY way to paint! :P (when u arent in it for the glory)
Whether you stockpile or only do custom orders is completely irrelevant.
Going back to my wedding videographer example, the videographer only does what the client asks, but that doesn't make the inclusion of unlicensed music any less a violation of copyright law.

Doctor Q,
Like I said in my post things like parody and satire provide exceptions to copyright law. Here is a link to copyright info in layman's terms told as a comic book incase anyone is interested, link (http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/zoomcomic.html). There are a lot of examples of copyright usage that can be very murky and live in the "well, it depends" areas of the law, but I don't think Sdashiki's business of selling unofficial reproductions of copyrighted material is one of them. ;)


Lethal

yellow
Oct 19, 2006, 03:30 PM
Of course, none of this changes the fact that I'd like to have an unlicensed copy of the sailboat picture from The Simpson's living room for my office. :)

LethalWolfe
Oct 19, 2006, 03:42 PM
Of course, none of this changes the fact that I'd like to have an unlicensed copy of the sailboat picture from The Simpson's living room for my office. :)

It's definitely a subtle, yet still recognizable reference if you are a fan. Having a picture of Homer or Bart would definitely be harder to hang in a business settings. :D


Lethal

AlohaDave
Oct 19, 2006, 04:38 PM
Having been in the business a long time I can tell you that tracing an image of a copyright or trademarked image and reselling it is illegal. A rule of thumb is if you held up your image and the copyrighted image in front of a judge in court could he tell you copied it. There is still a mistaken idea that if you take an image and change it 10% then it is new. This in not true. The only way you could sell your images is in small quantities becuase the large companies will not bother to come after you.

Doctor Q
Oct 19, 2006, 04:39 PM
I seriously doubt that political cartoons aren't legal. Otherwise, the "powers that be" would certainly get after those annoying cartoonists. Maybe the "journalist" title affords protection? If so, maybe you can publish a newspaper on canvas, or on T-shirts, in order to beat the system. :)

Snark
Oct 19, 2006, 05:56 PM
I seriously doubt that political cartoons aren't legal. Otherwise, the "powers that be" would certainly get after those annoying cartoonists. Maybe the "journalist" title affords protection?
Political cartoons come under the umbrella of fair use/parody/news. Even then, you can still suffer consequences by way of defamation/libel problems if you get too sloppy.

Snark

macaddicted
Oct 19, 2006, 07:23 PM
google for questions like this and there is only half-cocked answers, even from legal sites dealing with copyright. there is nothing specific to "fan-art" which is I guess what my work falls under.

Paramount shut down a substantial number of non-commercial fan sites for Star Trek and its spin-offs a number of years ago.

and again, I dont paint and then sell, I paint ONLY what a client asks and then pays for. i just cant see myself painting image after image and just letting them pile up while I look for a customer. commission is the ONLY way to paint! :P (when u arent in it for the glory)

The fact that you are doing the art on commission doesn't change the fact that you are making money based on someone else's intellectual property.

iMeowbot
Oct 19, 2006, 07:29 PM
What's the difference between the political cartoon and Chuck Norris T-shirts?
In the US version of all this, the First Amendment wins over publicity rights for incidental uses, and when some statement is being made about the public figure. Nyuk nyuk nyuk (http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/25_Cal4th_387.htm).

Outright exploitation of likenesses without significant original content didn't work for the guy who make the Stooges drawings, and it also didn't work for the producers of the old Beatlemania stage show and film, who lost $10 million (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE1D71630F936A35755C0A960948260) in a suit from Apple (the other one) over the issue.

macdon401
Oct 19, 2006, 11:04 PM
this thread is kinda reminding me of the, "got a new iMac dude, see pics"
it just keeps going on and on and on and on....pathetic...LOL!
R

Doctor Q
Oct 19, 2006, 11:39 PM
it just keeps going on and on and on and on....We can stop anytime we want to, right guys?

Speaking of guys, here is an interesting licensing notice on a page about one of my heroes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Burnschan.jpg):It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement.

wongulous
Oct 20, 2006, 12:42 AM
you want something painted, are you going to just say you can never have one because the subject is something "copyrighted"...

Yes. Yes, I would. Legality is legality, and respect for original content creators is important. Shame on you.

2ndPath
Oct 20, 2006, 05:20 AM
The fact that you are doing the art on commission doesn't change the fact that you are making money based on someone else's intellectual property.

So he is earning money for painting cartoon characters and thus infringing the copyright. So is it the same if someone sends a photograph containing, for example, a cartoon character to a photo printing service? Can the printing service be sued for doing this?

iMeowbot
Oct 20, 2006, 05:27 AM
So he is earning money for painting cartoon characters and thus infringing the copyright. So is it the same if someone sends a photograph containing, for example, a cartoon character to a photo printing service? Can the printing service be sued for doing this?
Yes. Both photo labs and copy shops are increasingly picky about what work they will accept. It can even be tough to get photos of yourself copied if they look like they may have been commercially produced.

makku
Oct 20, 2006, 09:06 AM
Not to hijack the thread and this is pretty popular topic but have anyone noticed that the mascot for "Kids Zone" on http://www.fcc.gov looks somewhat like Doraemon?
The FCC has said that "Broadband" the cat is an original character and have ignored repeated request by the copyright holder of Doraemon to stop using the character.

So to the OP I think you will be fine if you change the clothing or the skin color of Homer or whatever character you wish to draw:p .

Edot
Oct 20, 2006, 11:03 AM
I'll buy one of your paintings, paint my own version of "your" cartoons, and make some money. Actually I think I will just use a photocopier, so I don't have to spend the time. Now that I think about it, I might as well just make copies of the original cartoons. Of course, nothing about this sounds wrong to me.:rolleyes:

Think of your OWN cartoons!! I can't believe you are referring to yourself as an artist when all you do is copy other people's work! Personally, I would call you a Xerox. Quit whinning and be a respectful artist. One that respects other people's original work.

MongoTheGeek
Oct 20, 2006, 11:46 AM
If you draw the whatever you will be fine for copyright purposes.

If you copy part of it then it is a derivative work and you might be in some trouble depending on how similar it is. Hand drawn version of movie scene, you should be almost entirely in the clear. Especially if the perspective differs.

The biggest problem is that you may run into trademark violations. That is why you can't rip off Mickey Mouse T-Shirts and why the "Black Bart" t-shirt people got into trouble. The question is did they trademark it, did they trademark it for apparel.

I am not a lawyer, I just line them up against the wall.

macdon401
Oct 20, 2006, 04:16 PM
...Im thinking of making lunch boxes, bedsheets and posters out of this ORIGINAL collage I made cause a friend asked me to...i don't think I will get into any trouble...you know a friend did ask!
What do you think ...come on give this up...LOL!
R

7on
Oct 20, 2006, 07:53 PM
This has me wondering too.

Why would stuff like Roy Litchenstein's pop art pieces not fall under copyrighted images?

and would something like this be copyrighted?
http://web.mac.com/jonshipman/jetz.jpg
No because I changed it a little or yes it's a copyrighted lyric and pop character therefore illegal (if I sold it)?

iMeowbot
Oct 20, 2006, 09:07 PM
Why would stuff like Roy Litchenstein's pop art pieces not fall under copyrighted images?

They did, and he received some threats at the time that were never carried out. He also stopped the outright plagiarism by the mid-1960s, when the world was still a little less litigious.

and would something like this be copyrighted?
http://web.mac.com/jonshipman/jetz.jpg
Absolutely. It's a derivative work, so both you and they nominally have some rights in it.
No because I changed it a little or yes it's a copyrighted lyric and pop character therefore illegal (if I sold it)?
The answer is "maybe" because you're flirting with both trademarks and copyright, and fair dealing/fair use have really squishy definitions and standards that vary all over the world. Historically, Lucas and co. have tended to ignore fan art, but character licensing is a huge business for them and they would likely say something if a significant amount of money was involved.

ATD
Oct 20, 2006, 10:42 PM
they would likely say something if a significant amount of money was involved.


That's the bottom line. While a lot that's been talked about here is technically illegal, many of these entities will not go after things like fan art. After all their fans, it's not good PR to sue them. Once fan art becomes a business and enough money is involved, the dynamic changes. I have dealt with creating advertising art for Disney, Lucas and the Simpsons and I have to say they exercise extremely tight control over what is legitimately produced. I could only imagine the energy they put into going after what they see as threat. You can talk back and forth about all the legal points you want but it is the creator that decides when that fine line is crossed.

2ndPath
Oct 21, 2006, 08:44 AM
I'll buy one of your paintings, paint my own version of "your" cartoons, and make some money. Actually I think I will just use a photocopier, so I don't have to spend the time. Now that I think about it, I might as well just make copies of the original cartoons. Of course, nothing about this sounds wrong to me.:rolleyes:

Think of your OWN cartoons!! I can't believe you are referring to yourself as an artist when all you do is copy other people's work! Personally, I would call you a Xerox. Quit whinning and be a respectful artist. One that respects other people's original work.

Artist covers a very wide range of poeple. Lots of painters in the past made most of their paintings showing portraits of poeple, who wanted to be painted and paid for it. Which is essentially what he is doing - paintig people, which in this case are fictional ones.

Edot
Oct 21, 2006, 09:48 AM
Artist covers a very wide range of poeple. Lots of painters in the past made most of their paintings showing portraits of poeple, who wanted to be painted and paid for it. Which is essentially what he is doing - paintig people, which in this case are fictional ones.


I agree with you, they are called painters not artists.

Flowbee
Oct 21, 2006, 11:11 AM
Artist covers a very wide range of poeple. Lots of painters in the past made most of their paintings showing portraits of poeple, who wanted to be painted and paid for it. Which is essentially what he is doing - paintig people, which in this case are fictional ones.

Yeah, if Bart Simpson comes to me and asks me to paint his portrait I'm not going to tell him "Sorry, I can't. You're a copyrighted character". Right?

2ndPath
Oct 21, 2006, 11:30 AM
I agree with you, they are called painters not artists.

Right, not every painter is necessarily an artist. But the fact that he is painting comic characters does not disqualify him from being one. And if he paints this character in his own "style" then he might already be considered an artist.

Yeah, if Bart Simpson comes to me and asks me to paint his portrait I'm not going to tell him "Sorry, I can't. You're a copyrighted character". Right?

I think this is a legal question and not the question whether it is art or not.

LethalWolfe
Oct 21, 2006, 02:39 PM
Artist covers a very wide range of poeple. Lots of painters in the past made most of their paintings showing portraits of poeple, who wanted to be painted and paid for it. Which is essentially what he is doing - paintig people, which in this case are fictional ones.
:rolleyes:

"Hi, I'm Bob. Will you paint my picture?" is not "essentaially" the same as, "Hi, I'm Bob. Will you paint me an exact replica of the Monkey from Family Guy?"


Lethal

iGav
Oct 21, 2006, 03:27 PM
:rolleyes:

And that's an understatement. :p

Flowbee
Oct 21, 2006, 06:30 PM
I think this is a legal question and not the question whether it is art or not.

I'm not sure what that has to do with my reply. :confused: But anyway, you're assertion that cartoon characters are just fictional people, and as such, selling paintings of them is no different than selling portraits of real people is just flat out wrong (from a legal point of view). Cartoon characters are not people. :confused:

Parkin Pig
Apr 16, 2014, 07:21 AM
Old thread - don't know why it appeared again

dvoros
Apr 16, 2014, 08:25 AM
I think your totally wrong about this. Try drawing or painting a Mickey Mouse picture and selling it. I think Disney would have a fleet of lawyers on your doorstep within minutes.:eek:

Hmmmm, that sucks.

I guess no one is gonna get any of me custom "Big Lebowski" shirts.

WORLD OF PAIN!


though on the topic of "fan art" you are incorrect. you can doodle anything you want and sell it, art is art. But when you say you are the original artist, you run into trouble.

I sell lots of paintings of cartoon shows, and because I paint them myself and make no claim to be the original character artist, have nothing legal to worry about. Someone asks me to paint a character, and I do it. How can that be illegal?

So I only wondered about the same thing with live action stuff and movies.

Tracing a movie frame in illustrator is sort of like painting by hand, as it isnt the original thing printed directly.....

primalman
Apr 16, 2014, 09:53 AM
Hmmmm, that sucks.

I guess no one is gonna get any of me custom "Big Lebowski" shirts.

WORLD OF PAIN!


though on the topic of "fan art" you are incorrect. you can doodle anything you want and sell it, art is art. But when you say you are the original artist, you run into trouble.

I sell lots of paintings of cartoon shows, and because I paint them myself and make no claim to be the original character artist, have nothing legal to worry about. Someone asks me to paint a character, and I do it. How can that be illegal?

So I only wondered about the same thing with live action stuff and movies.

Tracing a movie frame in illustrator is sort of like painting by hand, as it isnt the original thing printed directly.....

I hope you have a lawyer on retainer already. Claiming to not be the owner makes no difference. You have lots to worry about selling paintings of cartoon shows. Lots.

snberk103
Apr 16, 2014, 11:48 AM
Old thread - don't know why it appeared again

I think your totally wrong about this. Try drawing or painting a Mickey Mouse picture and selling it. I think Disney would have a fleet of lawyers on your doorstep within minutes.:eek:

I hope you have a lawyer on retainer already. Claiming to not be the owner makes no difference. You have lots to worry about selling paintings of cartoon shows. Lots.

8 year old thread resurrected by a spam post.... which I reported.

Sdashiki
Apr 16, 2014, 01:16 PM
LoL. Yea...lol.

GoCubsGo
Apr 16, 2014, 01:19 PM
Man am I glad this topic is open for discussion again.

Doctor Q
Apr 16, 2014, 02:25 PM
We'd better order our t-shirts before the thread goes silent again! :)