copyrights and commissions

[buyatari]

How is it that an artist can produce any copyrighted image whether character or comic page recreation and sell it legally?

 

Is this something the comic studios have just looked the other way on for the major artists or can any artist do this?

[Bronty]

are you asking with respect to that collage piece?

 

anyways, you're not the only one wondering, if you read the comments in CAF on the black lotus recreation (I think that's where I recall this from anyways) Quinton Hoover (one of the mtg artists) wonders how Chris Rush (one of the other mtg artists) got away with doing the lotus recreation in the first place. You might ask Quinton for his insights on it with respect to non-comic properties, although you might not like the answer.

 

As far as comics go, not too sure. Could be a 'look the other way' thing as you say. I have noted artists will sometime put 'characters copyright marvel comics' or some such at the bottom; maybe that's enough. Not sure.

[buyatari]

As far as comics go, not too sure. Could be a 'look the other way' thing as you say. I have noted artists will sometime put 'characters copyright marvel comics' or some such at the bottom; maybe that's enough. Not sure.

 

Ok but they still use the image (without express written permission I assume) and sell it for a profit. Some even sell prints.

[grandz-migration]

Any character, fictional or real can be illustrated by someone as a original

artwork. When a reproduction of that original artwork is made without the

consent of, or credit to, the holder of the copyrighted character (if the

character is copyrighted) legal action can be brought.

 

It all depends if the holder thinks it's worthwhile to bring action. If someone

is selling prints from their original rendering at a con, and just making a few

dollars, I don't think it's worth waging war over.

 

If someone makes a original illustration of someones character in a manor

that could hold harm to that character's monetary value, then it might be worth

taking action.

 

For example. Someone makes Mickey Mouse taking a dump on the American flag.

Disney would shut down any sales, and go after that creator (this is given

ONLY as an example).

[Bronty]

great explanation. That last point is true to life (that's exactly the air pirate funnies scenario, no?).

[Kevin Boyd]

As I understand it, publishers tend to look the other way when it comes to the sale of sketches and commissions featuring their characters. That this is an accepted practice with the comics community that no one has ever expressed a problem with. So long as you are not publishing that image for profit it is a private transaction between you and the creator for your personal enjoyment. And you can also pass that along to another collector for profit, so long as they also agree.

 

Flip side though, is that no one can PUBLISH FOR PROFIT said images without the express permission of the copyright holder... and that includes posters, prints, sketchbooks, etc.

 

I looked into this when I was arranging for images for convention program booklets. As long as the con program was not sold, then the images were considered FAN ART (even if it was done by a pro) and so long as we acknowledged the copyright holder in the program it wasn't a problem. It's free publicity for the company. However, if we wanted to take that image and make a print out of it and charge for it, then that was not acceptable legally, as that would be considered publishing and therefore violating the copyright. We could only give it away for free. Chances are they would do nothing even if we did do a small run, but better safe than sorry.

 

Whenever an artist publishes a sketchbook or a print for profit featuring copyrighted characters, he should be getting permission from the copyright holder, but I don't think many actually do, and I think for the most part that the companies don't really have much interest in going after them over it. If it's a small run, say under 250 copies then I don't think they take action unless there's a reason to.

 

I'm not sure how the comics press gets their permissions, but many magazines do publish sketches and commissions. I assume that they have permission from the copyright holders of the characters featured to use those images, either that or they assume the risk and the companies turn a blind eye.

 

I know, for example, that DC did not approve of the use of the 3-minute sketches of their characters for inclusion in the 3-Minute Sketchbook trade paperback.

[grandz-migration]

great explanation. That last point is true to life (that's exactly the air pirate funnies scenario, no?).

 

I'm not familiar with the Air Pirate Funnies scenario. I know in the early seventies

Disney came down hard on a underground comic book that showed Mickey and

Minnie doing the horizontal shuffle, and something to do with Goof.

 

That publisher pretty much lot everything as a result.

[Bronty]

we're talking about the same thing - that disney character underground was called Air Pirate Funnies.

[aardvark88]

Sample of Air Pirates underground comix:

 

[Bronty]

thanks Allan.

 

I've seen that cover before but never noticed until now that Mickey has two huge bags of dope strapped to his plane

[Artemaria]

If someone makes a original illustration of someones character in a manor

that could hold harm to that character's monetary value, then it might be worth

taking action.

 

Great post.

 

This happened when a "fine" artist decided to do homoerotic paintings of Batman and Robin a few years back. He was sued very quickly for copyright infringement and the paintings did not make it into any galleries.

 

I saw a glimpse of one of the paintings in dispute in an online article (nothing salacious, it was USA Today, or something like that).

 

The art wasn't bad, kind of like Alex Ross meets El Greco with a shirtless Batman.

 

Weird, but not horrible.

 

- A