Wow..cool comic related crafting on Etsy!

[dgarthwaite-migration]

Sweet, looks like someone is stealing copyrighted material and making $$ off of it!

 

 

If she took the images, duplicated them and mass produced hundreds of the same pattern and image that would be true.

 

These look like individual creations using actual comic pages. That's not stealing.

 

Yes she cuts the pictures and panels and uses the actual books for her crafting.

 

She is a young lady and the daughter of one of my good friends. She also collects books, original art, she cosplays as well. She is a big comic book fan..

 

If she is using the images as a way to sell the shoes, I'd think this could still be infringement. By selling them, it clearly places a value on the infringement "damages".

 

DG

Sell a comic intact, all good. Chop a comic up and sell it, copyright infringement.

 

I'm not saying I agree with the laws. I'm just saying I think this is shaky ground. A lawyer might disagree. This could negatively impact Marvel's opportunity to release a comparable product with images they own. That could be construed as 'damages' to their brand & properties. If people were donating their comics and she was only selling the service of applying the images, that would be different in my opinion.

 

DG

[Pete Marino]

Sweet, looks like someone is stealing copyrighted material and making $$ off of it!

 

 

If she took the images, duplicated them and mass produced hundreds of the same pattern and image that would be true.

 

These look like individual creations using actual comic pages. That's not stealing.

 

Yes she cuts the pictures and panels and uses the actual books for her crafting.

 

She is a young lady and the daughter of one of my good friends. She also collects books, original art, she cosplays as well. She is a big comic book fan..

 

If she is using the images as a way to sell the shoes, I'd think this could still be infringement. By selling them, it clearly places a value on the infringement "damages".

 

DG

Sell a comic intact, all good. Chop a comic up and sell it, copyright infringement.

 

I'm not saying I agree with the laws. I'm just saying I think this is shaky ground. A lawyer might disagree. This could negatively impact Marvel's opportunity to release a comparable product with images they own. That could be construed as 'damages' to their brand & properties. If people were donating their comics and she was only selling the service of applying the images, that would be different in my opinion.

 

DG

 

I see this no different than the "art" someone put online where he cut up comics and put it over a mannequin. I may be wrong, but as long as she's buying the comic and then re-purposing it it's ok. If she's printing the images directly on the shoes, or printing it on paper and applying it to the shoes then there would be a problem.

 

FYI, this is the story I am talking about:

 

http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/08/struggling-artist-accidentally-uses-rare-comics-worth-a-fortune-to-make-papier-mache-model-3874227/

[dgarthwaite-migration]

I saw that article when it came out. The reason I think this is different is that he took his comics and made one statue. It's clearly not a manufacturing process. To repeatedly use a company's copyrighted material and repurpose it with the intent to sell a product at a premium price seems entirely different. Again, I may be wrong.

 

DG

[DavidTheDavid]

Not sure that it matters, or even if it's accurate, but I can only imagine that licensing costs would far exceed these "cottage industry" type artists.

[HarveySwick]

Have you seen these on Etsy??

 

http://www.etsy.com/shop/LLsCreations83?utm_source=convo&utm_medium=trans_email&utm_campaign=convo_html

 

I bought the DD one for my daughter. It came out really great and Lindsay is really nice and has said she could make custom characters if you wanted one.

 

I know this thread REALLY is about shoes but figured it's comic related and Etsy so...

[DavidTheDavid]

Have you seen these on Etsy??

 

http://www.etsy.com/shop/LLsCreations83?utm_source=convo&utm_medium=trans_email&utm_campaign=convo_html

 

I bought the DD one for my daughter. It came out really great and Lindsay is really nice and has said she could make custom characters if you wanted one.

 

I know this thread REALLY is about shoes but figured it's comic related and Etsy so...

Oh man, that Spock Beanie, that's great!

 

[HarveySwick]

[Tony S]

Sweet, looks like someone is stealing copyrighted material and making $$ off of it!

 

 

If she took the images, duplicated them and mass produced hundreds of the same pattern and image that would be true.

 

These look like individual creations using actual comic pages. That's not stealing.

 

Yes she cuts the pictures and panels and uses the actual books for her crafting.

 

She is a young lady and the daughter of one of my good friends. She also collects books, original art, she cosplays as well. She is a big comic book fan..

 

If she is using the images as a way to sell the shoes, I'd think this could still be infringement. By selling them, it clearly places a value on the infringement "damages".

 

DG

Sell a comic intact, all good. Chop a comic up and sell it, copyright infringement.

 

I don't believe this is true. Not being a copyright lawyer it's hard for me to know for sure. And I would point out that copyright lawyers are prone to disagree on the principles of "fair use" and "first purchase".

 

If the the artists work is considered "art" in it's own right, then you can indeed use otherwise copyrighted material. For instance, look at all the songs that "sample" snippets of soundtracks from other (copyrighted) songs. Because the song is something new and unique, it is considered a work of art itself. Therefore the use of otherwise copyrighted material is allowed.

 

I believe the same argument holds true here. Marvel comics doesn't make shoes. Using comic book panels (which the artist purchased) to create shoes I believe would indeed constitute a new art all it's own. Especially if each item is unique.

 

If the artist quits purchasing comic books to cut up and starts reproducing the printed pages so as to mass produce items that are exactly the same, then the line is clearly crossed. I think what we see here is "new, unique" art which is allowed

[dgarthwaite-migration]

Sweet, looks like someone is stealing copyrighted material and making $$ off of it!

 

 

If she took the images, duplicated them and mass produced hundreds of the same pattern and image that would be true.

 

These look like individual creations using actual comic pages. That's not stealing.

 

Yes she cuts the pictures and panels and uses the actual books for her crafting.

 

She is a young lady and the daughter of one of my good friends. She also collects books, original art, she cosplays as well. She is a big comic book fan..

 

If she is using the images as a way to sell the shoes, I'd think this could still be infringement. By selling them, it clearly places a value on the infringement "damages".

 

DG

Sell a comic intact, all good. Chop a comic up and sell it, copyright infringement.

 

I don't believe this is true. Not being a copyright lawyer it's hard for me to know for sure. And I would point out that copyright lawyers are prone to disagree on the principles of "fair use" and "first purchase".

 

If the the artists work is considered "art" in it's own right, then you can indeed use otherwise copyrighted material. For instance, look at all the songs that "sample" snippets of soundtracks from other (copyrighted) songs. Because the song is something new and unique, it is considered a work of art itself. Therefore the use of otherwise copyrighted material is allowed.

 

I believe the same argument holds true here. Marvel comics doesn't make shoes. Using comic book panels (which the artist purchased) to create shoes I believe would indeed constitute a new art all it's own. Especially if each item is unique.

 

If the artist quits purchasing comic books to cut up and starts reproducing the printed pages so as to mass produce items that are exactly the same, then the line is clearly crossed. I think what we see here is "new, unique" art which is allowed

 

I've highlighted one thing you said above in bold. Royalties are paid for those snippets in most cases. People have been sued for using snippets of songs without permission. That's one reason I feel that this type of use may not be wise. Some artists have intentionally incorporated their own "retro" style comic art without using copyrighted material. I think it would be more wise to use material that has drifted into public domain. There's a lot of that out there, but it wouldn't sell as well as Marvel's artwork on a pair of shoes.

 

DG

[Tony S]

Sweet, looks like someone is stealing copyrighted material and making $$ off of it!

 

 

If she took the images, duplicated them and mass produced hundreds of the same pattern and image that would be true.

 

These look like individual creations using actual comic pages. That's not stealing.

 

Yes she cuts the pictures and panels and uses the actual books for her crafting.

 

She is a young lady and the daughter of one of my good friends. She also collects books, original art, she cosplays as well. She is a big comic book fan..

 

If she is using the images as a way to sell the shoes, I'd think this could still be infringement. By selling them, it clearly places a value on the infringement "damages".

 

DG

Sell a comic intact, all good. Chop a comic up and sell it, copyright infringement.

 

I don't believe this is true. Not being a copyright lawyer it's hard for me to know for sure. And I would point out that copyright lawyers are prone to disagree on the principles of "fair use" and "first purchase".

 

If the the artists work is considered "art" in it's own right, then you can indeed use otherwise copyrighted material. For instance, look at all the songs that "sample" snippets of soundtracks from other (copyrighted) songs. Because the song is something new and unique, it is considered a work of art itself. Therefore the use of otherwise copyrighted material is allowed.

 

I believe the same argument holds true here. Marvel comics doesn't make shoes. Using comic book panels (which the artist purchased) to create shoes I believe would indeed constitute a new art all it's own. Especially if each item is unique.

 

If the artist quits purchasing comic books to cut up and starts reproducing the printed pages so as to mass produce items that are exactly the same, then the line is clearly crossed. I think what we see here is "new, unique" art which is allowed

 

I've highlighted one thing you said above in bold. Royalties are paid for those snippets in most cases. People have been sued for using snippets of songs without permission. That's one reason I feel that this type of use may not be wise. Some artists have intentionally incorporated their own "retro" style comic art without using copyrighted material. I think it would be more wise to use material that has drifted into public domain. There's a lot of that out there, but it wouldn't sell as well as Marvel's artwork on a pair of shoes.

 

DG

 

Well, we can probably agree it is a grey area. An attorney is going to tell you to get permission and/or a license because that's the easiest thing to do. But the USA does have a fair use doctrine that is part of the law. One of the things looked at is "The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work." I think we can agree that custom made Spider-Man shoes or a wallet do not harm the copyrighted work. In fact it promotes it.

 

You have heard of "the Grey Album" right? A good example of a complete album made up of a mash up of Jay-Z's The Black Album and the White Album by the Beetles. No licences or permissions were sought before hand. EMI made a fuss - which only further enhanced the Grey Album's desirability. There was an organized day of protest - "Grey Tuesday" where the album was downloaded 100,000 times in one day as a slap in the face to EMI. And the album remains available for download to this day.

 

And it's not licensed. Nor have royalties been paid.

 

It's hard to imagine Marvel or DC taking offense. Disney I don't know. They have made a few widely publicized cease and desist type encounters. Some of which backfired. I recall the story of a daycare that had Disney characters hand painted on the wall. Disney made them take them down. It played in the media and week later Warner Brothers sent a crew in to repaint the walls with WB characters for free.

 

I do think there is some sort of weird double standard going on here though. There are any number of boardies posting up art they have drawn featuring copyrighted characters. Several come to mind that sell cover and panel page reproductions. I don't recall copyright concerns being raised. Maybe I missed that, IDK. But this young artists re-purposing seems to draw a more watchful eye.

[dgarthwaite-migration]

I heard a nice interview with Charles Schulz on public radio in the 80's. He explained why copyright owners like himself or Disney have/had to be so aggressive and litigious. The way the laws are written, if you don't actively defend the rights, you could slowly lose them. Every uncontested use of them erodes them.

 

Record companies are so hated now, they are just trying to survive. They probably gave up because their fight was just creating a stronger enemy... their customers.

 

I think copyright laws need to be reformed. Why does an artist's children own the rights to something they never created? Copyrights and patents should be to reward creativity and innovation, not reward a lawyer's pocket.I don't believe copyrights should be bought and sold. It should go to the creator while they are alive plus maybe 50 years. The only reason I'd add 50 years is so there would've been no benefit to killing George Lucas to get Star Wars rights. Some copyrights have simply become too valuable and envy can motivate people to do an illegal act.

 

DG

[Tony S]

I heard a nice interview with Charles Schulz on public radio in the 80's. He explained why copyright owners like himself or Disney have/had to be so aggressive and litigious. The way the laws are written, if you don't actively defend the rights, you could slowly lose them. Every uncontested use of them erodes them.

 

Record companies are so hated now, they are just trying to survive. They probably gave up because their fight was just creating a stronger enemy... their customers.

 

I think copyright laws need to be reformed. Why does an artist's children own the rights to something they never created? Copyrights and patents should be to reward creativity and innovation, not reward a lawyer's pocket.I don't believe copyrights should be bought and sold. It should go to the creator while they are alive plus maybe 50 years. The only reason I'd add 50 years is so there would've been no benefit to killing George Lucas to get Star Wars rights. Some copyrights have simply become too valuable and envy can motivate people to do an illegal act.

 

DG

 

Yeah - agree with you on all the above. You create a life saving drug, you own an exclusive patent for what, 20 years? You create a talking, wise cracking mouse and it your's forever....

 

I had read about the "erosion" you speak of on copyrights. But had forgotten. Thanks for the reminder.