CGC SS Sketches, what are your thoughts on this?

[Steve_Paulus]

It's not about the sketches, that is something they are always free to do, it's the reprints of printed Marvel works that he got sued for. Now cover recreations, without subtle differences would fall under this category too of being illegal to sell.

 

Why is no one noticing that Marvel is the one selling these sketch blanks for us, how would they be able to sue us, or an artist?

 

Yeah I brought this point up before. Marvel prints and sells Sketch covers knowing that they will be used (At least now they do) for convention sketches. I believe that any judge will rule that distrubution of the sketch books constitutes defacto (See legal terms) permission...

 

At least thats what I thought....

 

I just grabbed a copy if ASM 169, in the Copy Right statement is reads, Amazing Spider-man (Including all prominent characters featured in the issue), and the DISTINTIVE Likenesses thereof, are the trademarks of Marvel Comics groups. Which makes me think that Marvel Comics groups ownes the likenesses of the characters so selling a sketch cover with a picture of spidy could in fact land the artist in hot H2O

I guess the question is:Is it illegal to draw trademark characters and sell them?

I think the answer is:

Yes. It is copyright infringement and you can get sued for all profits plus a fine for theft.

 

 

I'm not an alarmest... and I think Stephen B. has his own axe to grind... but I think that the message that the Mouse is sending is.... DONT SUE US or by the power of the mouse ears we will shove Decon up your

 

If I was an artist at a con. and was luckly enought to hav a fan following who would pay for a sketch on a cover. I would have the would be buyer sign a statement that has some legal blah blah and finish with ... by signing this statement the sketch would not be resold...and that any money that exchanged hands for the book was in the form of a donation and or somesuch.....

 

DAMN THE MOUSE

see below!

Anyway... Because I think the GR movie will SUCK "a round or roundish body, of various sizes and materials, either hollow or solid, for use in games" I say we Boycott the movie....

 

 

 

[Ryan.]

So THAT'S why Bissette doesn't want to do any more CGC SS stuff...

 

...maybe.

[3319comics]

What about cgc ss non sketches just sigs or maybe sig with remark fall in with all of this?

[Steve_Paulus]

What about cgc ss non sketches just sigs or maybe sig with remark fall in with all of this?

 

My understanding is that Signatures are NOT an issue, nor are remarks... Unless they are sketchs of trademarked material and the artist recieves $$$ for them...

 

permissum artifex caveo..... let the artist beware

[A-DONIS]

This sounds like a single person stirring up the pot.

[N/A]

I don't think Bissette is a tool, at all. The only thing he might be guilty of is being a little bit of an alarmist. As an outsider looking in, my impression has been that Friedrich was singled out because he filed a lawsuit and tried to wrangle a settlement over Ghost Rider profits.

 

What Bissette has cobbled together is a very interesting dissertation that perhaps Friedrich was not singled out because of the suit, but because there is a new sheriff in town, namely Disney. While Marvel had an established policy of looking the other way while artists did shows and made money off marvel's characters, it is entirely possible that Disney will clamp down this hard on anyone that it perceives as profiting off its properties.

 

And they may, like the Eye of Sauron, eventually turn their gaze upon the convention scene. So rather than decrying Bissette, maybe we should all take a minute or two and think of the ramifications that are implicit in his well written and thought provoking piece.

 

Why bother going to the convention scene. Do an eBay search. One phone call and Disney would have a list of buyers selling sketches including all contact information. That would send a clear message and would be relatively easy to do.

[Steve_Paulus]

I don't think Bissette is a tool, at all. The only thing he might be guilty of is being a little bit of an alarmist. As an outsider looking in, my impression has been that Friedrich was singled out because he filed a lawsuit and tried to wrangle a settlement over Ghost Rider profits.

 

What Bissette has cobbled together is a very interesting dissertation that perhaps Friedrich was not singled out because of the suit, but because there is a new sheriff in town, namely Disney. While Marvel had an established policy of looking the other way while artists did shows and made money off marvel's characters, it is entirely possible that Disney will clamp down this hard on anyone that it perceives as profiting off its properties.

 

And they may, like the Eye of Sauron, eventually turn their gaze upon the convention scene. So rather than decrying Bissette, maybe we should all take a minute or two and think of the ramifications that are implicit in his well written and thought provoking piece.

 

Why bother going to the convention scene. Do an eBay search. One phone call and Disney would have a list of buyers selling sketches including all contact information. That would send a clear message and would be relatively easy to do.

 

I do not believe that there is an issue in selling these sketches after the fact on ebay, neither Marvel or Disney can prevent the sale of someone's personal property ... What Disney could do is let artists know that profiting from selling unauthorized / images protected under copy write laws is illegal and they can be held accountable. The fact the industry has looked the other way for years may or may not play a part in a court ruling.

After thinking about this for a few hours (That’s right on Valentine’s day) I have come to the following conclusions:

1. As long as Artists and creators do not sue past employers for royalties on movies being released, we can pretend this issue is dead

2. We are talking about an artist being paid for a single drawing, not something that is meant for mass production…. So don’t even think about having a sketch lithographed onto a tee shirts, and this becomes a non issue.

3. Convention Sketches are free publicity for everyone involved, so “in our best interest” seems to be a reasonable deterrent to avoid mutual destruction.

4. I’ve spent WAAYYY to much time thinking about this… it is a non issue

5. But we should still boycott the new Ghost Rider movie… It will suck, and I happen to like Gary F. Who I think received really bad legal advice from his DB lawyer. I’ve never met his lawyer but I’m sure he is a DB. The movie will suck regardless…. Boycott it…trust me.

 

[alphatrion1]

I'm down

[A-DONIS]

I'm curious why we're all making assumptions here..

[spawnfiend]

I'm curious why we're all making assumptions here..

 

Exactly. [thumbsup] Ride the awesome train till its gone.

[brendanb438]

I thought that sketches of popular characters are allowed under copyright law as long as it isn't directly ripping off an already established and known shot (character + background and pose type of thingy).

 

Now mass producing then the same image I know isn't allowed but sketches are pretty much true 1 of 1s.

[magZ]

Get your sketches while you still can !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

marvel release blanks to get sketched on and then Disney does this .

[Steve_Paulus]

I thought that sketches of popular characters are allowed under copyright law as long as it isn't directly ripping off an already established and known shot (character + background and pose type of thingy). Now mass producing then the same image I know isn't allowed but sketches are pretty much true 1 of 1s.

 

Sorry the likeness of the character is also part of the copyright law... and if it is sold for $$$....

[wolverinehurdler]

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/02/15/john-nee-dan-slott-rob-liefeld-and-artists-alley/

 

There we go Slott!

[N/A]

I don't think Bissette is a tool, at all. The only thing he might be guilty of is being a little bit of an alarmist. As an outsider looking in, my impression has been that Friedrich was singled out because he filed a lawsuit and tried to wrangle a settlement over Ghost Rider profits.

 

What Bissette has cobbled together is a very interesting dissertation that perhaps Friedrich was not singled out because of the suit, but because there is a new sheriff in town, namely Disney. While Marvel had an established policy of looking the other way while artists did shows and made money off marvel's characters, it is entirely possible that Disney will clamp down this hard on anyone that it perceives as profiting off its properties.

 

And they may, like the Eye of Sauron, eventually turn their gaze upon the convention scene. So rather than decrying Bissette, maybe we should all take a minute or two and think of the ramifications that are implicit in his well written and thought provoking piece.

 

Why bother going to the convention scene. Do an eBay search. One phone call and Disney would have a list of buyers selling sketches including all contact information. That would send a clear message and would be relatively easy to do.

 

I do not believe that there is an issue in selling these sketches after the fact on ebay, neither Marvel or Disney can prevent the sale of someone's personal property ... What Disney could do is let artists know that profiting from selling unauthorized / images protected under copy write laws is illegal and they can be held accountable. The fact the industry has looked the other way for years may or may not play a part in a court ruling.

After thinking about this for a few hours (That’s right on Valentine’s day) I have come to the following conclusions:

1. As long as Artists and creators do not sue past employers for royalties on movies being released, we can pretend this issue is dead

2. We are talking about an artist being paid for a single drawing, not something that is meant for mass production…. So don’t even think about having a sketch lithographed onto a tee shirts, and this becomes a non issue.

3. Convention Sketches are free publicity for everyone involved, so “in our best interest” seems to be a reasonable deterrent to avoid mutual destruction.

4. I’ve spent WAAYYY to much time thinking about this… it is a non issue

5. But we should still boycott the new Ghost Rider movie… It will suck, and I happen to like Gary F. Who I think received really bad legal advice from his DB lawyer. I’ve never met his lawyer but I’m sure he is a DB. The movie will suck regardless…. Boycott it…trust me.

 

Sending a couple of letters to eBay sellers mentioning what they were selling would go a long way. If the sketch is graded the artist and date are listed at the top for Disney to make yet another list. It really would not take much effort to scare off the vast majority of artists and collectors.

[wolverinehurdler]

On the topic of artist alley. CBR posted this, ...

Quesada: Let me put this as simply as I can: Marvel is not looking to make any new policy announcements through this lawsuit -- a lawsuit that began five years ago.

 

As a case in point, the Internet and the creative community became incredibly concerned when Disney acquired Marvel in 2009, thinking that Marvel now wouldn't return original art to its artists, even despite my publicly stating the contrary. As you can see, that was unfounded.

 

Buckley: We in no way want to interfere with creators at conventions who are providing a positive Marvel experience for our fans. We want fans to speak and interact with the creators who wrote, penciled, inked, lettered, colored or edited their favorite stories. Part of that positive interaction is that a fan can walk away with a signed memento or personalized sketch from an artist.

[Menace]

That article give a lot more perspective than just this.

 

I want to read into this and say that they needed to quantify his previous gains from the property so that they can move forward on some sort of financial settlement, which is emphasized has not happened yet.

 

Quesada: Some historical context would be helpful towards understanding the situation. This story begins in 2007, when Gary decided to sue Marvel claiming that, as a writer, he was the sole creator of Ghost Rider and that Marvel was infringing on his rights. A federal judge disagreed. Recently, Gary's lawyers have said publicly that they intend to appeal their loss, and that ball is now in their court.

 

Now, here's where the story seems to take on a life of its own. First and foremost, Marvel has not settled with Gary. What has been misinterpreted as a settlement is a court document that Gary's very own attorneys agreed to, along with Marvel's attorneys. That document basically ends his lawsuit against Marvel at the trial court level with Marvel having won and Gary's case dismissed. By agreeing on a number for the profits Gary made from selling unlicensed Johnny Blaze/Ghost Rider merchandise after the court has decided that Marvel is the owner of that copyright, it allows Gary's attorneys to file his appeal now rather than have Gary litigate further. It is in no way a "fine" or "punishment" for Gary. It is something that the court asked both parties to do and agree upon. This is one more step in an expensive and time-consuming legal process initiated way back in 2007.

 

Buckley: We should also clarify another rumor that Marvel is somehow preventing Gary from promoting his creative association with Ghost Rider. This is simply not true. The court document Joe mentioned specifically gives Gary the right to sign authorized Ghost Rider books and merchandise and sell his autograph.

[wolverinehurdler]

Yea...just wanted to point that out...It was an interesting read.

[Menace]

Yea...just wanted to point that out...It was an interesting read.

 

Oh for sure, that is a series of statements that has a LOT of depth if you take a look at what they said.

[brendanb438]

I thought that sketches of popular characters are allowed under copyright law as long as it isn't directly ripping off an already established and known shot (character + background and pose type of thingy). Now mass producing then the same image I know isn't allowed but sketches are pretty much true 1 of 1s.

 

Sorry the likeness of the character is also part of the copyright law... and if it is sold for $$$....

 

Ok thank you for the clarification, so I do know to get around this then if the character in question is spoofed in some manner than it is legal.