Cover Reproduction artwork

[mangbus]

I did these three for a fellow boardie

 

All 3

 

Thanks for posting this! These are amazing. What kind of pencils / inks are you using?

 

I'm in the process of recreating Avengers #1 (Kirby/Ayers) for my brother for xmas. He is a huge Avengers fan and I'm going to surprise him with it.

 

I am in no way an artist but I do find it relaxing to sit down for a few hours and try. So far so decent. I'm learning a lot every time I put a pencil in my hand.

 

Mine are not going to be 11x17 for a while. I'm doing mine at about the exact size of the comic just so I can learn spacing, composition and I can use the comic for reference (or high quality picture in this case.)

 

Here is an early pic of the pencils - just setting up the spacing of the heroes and will clean em up a lot more. The lettering / text will be the death of me though.

 

 

 

I've also did a few cover recreations onto blanks this past week. The GR and the Hulk in my sig are two examples.

 

Keep up the good work guys/gals. Any feedback is appreciated!

[kav]

I spoke with a lawyer today, who just so happens to be fairly well versed in copyright law, with exception to any changes to the law that have been made since 2006, and who happens to be the son of the owner of the company I work for (a nice fringe benefit). He said that yes, "technically" you are in copyright violation. However there are some points to consider here.

 

A) you are not publicly advertising the sale of such items on a frequent basis to which you make your primary income from.

 

B) you are not claiming the creative licencing as you own, nor the intellectual property as your own creation. This would constitute fraud and would set yourself up for more litigation than a simple copyright infringement.

 

C) you are not mass producing these items for public consumption

 

D) crediting the original artists and copyright holder is always going to go in your favor, however it is also an acknowledgement by you that you are not the rightful owner of the original creation or property.

 

And finally he added that more than likely the money you receive from the sale of such items will be less than the cost of the initial consultation of the lawyers chosen by the copyright holders, that they would not see the benefit to starting any action towards you other than possibly sending you a C&D letter. And even that part is doubtful because in the end, what you are essentially doing is free advertisement for the copyright holders in the first place. While you are not licensed and therefore not legally able to profit from the sale of such items, the benefit of the possibility of future sales of their IP is greater than the chances of said sales, absent your work.

 

Also taking this stance, is the reason why artists are able to do commissions and sketches of characters they do not own the rights to without reprisal at comic conventions as well as private sales.

 

this is a bit different as it is using a photograph but interesting:

Tiger Woods In Ohio

ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publishing, Inc.,10 is a very recent case that has provided the latest ground for the debate between the First Amendment and the right of publicity. In ETW Corp., Rick Rush, a "sports artist", created a painting sold as a limited edition print and a large edition lithograph, that featured Tiger Woods in the center in several poses, including one "displaying that awesome swing" according to the artist's accompanying text. The painting, which celebrated Woods' 1997 victory in the U.S. Open, also depicted several past winners of the tournament superimposed over the leader board in the background, a caddie and a golf scoreboard. Tiger Wood's exclusive licensing agent sued, claiming in part that the print violated Tiger Woods' right of publicity under Ohio law. The Ohio federal court rejected Wood's argument that the print was "merely sports merchandise" unworthy of First Amendment protection. Instead, the court found that the print sought to convey a message, and that message was a unique expression of an idea, rather than the mere copying of an image. Accordingly, the court decided that the print was protected by the First Amendment, and dismissed the case.

The case was appealed, and a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is expected soon. Belying the case's significance, the artist, Rush, is supported on appeal by briefs filed on behalf of the Newspaper Association of America, which represents over 2,000 newspapers, and by a group of over 70 law professors. Woods is supported on appeal by the estates of Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley, the Screen Actors Guild, and the player associations for the National Football League and Major League Baseball

Where do these cases leave the artist or publisher, or their counsel, when trying to decide whether to create or sell a given work? In light of the cases, it is clear that artists do enjoy the right to use a celebrity's image as part of their artistic creations. The best that can be said is that, the more the art focuses and depends on the celebrity image, the more likely it will to run afoul of right of publicity statutes. On the other hand, the more clearly the work expresses an artistic theme and uses the celebrity image as part of that expression, the greater the comfort that the artist or publisher should have that the work is protected by the First Amendment.

- See more at: http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/tiger-woods-and-the-use-of-celebrity-images-in-works-of-art.html#sthash.YalcJtqd.dpuf

 

also amy grant sued marvel over the use of her image on a Dr Strange cover, not for using her image, which is legal, but for associating her with the occult:

http://www.recalledcomics.com/DoctorStrangeSorcererSupreme15AmyGrant.php