Photograph used without permission 0

[Lobstrosity]

10 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

Actually it does, as he was (presumably) in essence making a copy for something he does not own the copyright to. i.e. the artwork in question. So technically, he made an illegal copy, and they pilfered it.

Personally, I think this is a legal Ouroboros, and as I said before, be careful of what you wish for. 
 

I always find it fascinating when people that buy a piece of work feel that they are somehow entitled to ownership beyond just that of the physical object, which I imagine is all that was purchased here.

Did Netflix do a shady thing? For sure. Should they be reprimanded? Yeah, why not. Easiest thing would be court of public opinion. Post what they did on social media, and let them reap what they’ve seen. Chopping off the OPs watermark is a jerk move.

That said, I can’t repeat this strongly enough. Taking what I presume was a picture of a piece of work with no indication of the photographer’s involvement, and only showing the work of the actual artist, with a ghosted name added in the margin is at best a copy of that artist’s work.

I don’t get to throw the page on a xerox machine, and then claim the xerox is my art, then copy that in perpetuity to make comics simply because I pushed the copy button. 

If I was to sign that xerox, and then claim authorship of the work, the folks on this board would have me up on a pike for being a fraudster. But then that’s what folks are digitally instigating here right? The OP should claim the image as his because he scanned it?

If the photo in question is of the OPs home, with art framed on a wall, then that is one thing. If it’s in a portfolio, or something else about it is more than a mere copy of the original, also something else. Simply making the original art digital, via camera vs scanner isn’t going to be sufficient grounds for it to be transformative, and thus the work of the OP, any more than my hitting the button on the copier would be. 
 

Even Richard Prince at least enlarged the Instagram posts before putting them on the gallery wall. He had a (horrible) argument of saying the work was transformative. 

As I understand it, the aggrieved party here, if there is one, should be the artist/publisher. Were I them, I’d seek to find out how my art came to be used inappropriately. I’d start with Netflix and work backward from there.

If I was the OP, If anything, I’d at least hesitate a bit before kicking that particular nest.

I’m no lawyer, but as somone who follows IP rights as closely as I am able for work reasons, and an over abundance of interest as an art fan, and amateur art law “fan”, I don’t see where the OP did anything but put his watermark over the artist’s work. Is that enough “transformative” in the digital age? 

Hell if I know. But I don’t think so.
 

Honestly, maybe I’m totally wrong, but I personally never would think it was mine to claim damages for. If anything, I’d be more fired up about the actual artists being compensated, rather than thinking of myself.

Reminds me of the guy that was thinking about suing for damages cause a piece of art he paid for was used for a print. 
Don’t care if it was commissioned, unless he had unique narrative input, which he didn’t. Just a series of other people’s IP and other artists’ actual artwork, that was then copied by an unscrupulous dealer.

Did the situation stink? For sure. Did the OP of that thread have real claim for damages? Not in my mind. Or here either.

A lot of folks think because they bought a physical work, they are involved in other avenues of ownership, and that just boggles my mind.

Such as it is.

-e.

I hope I didn't give the impression that I believe that I own anything more than the art-object. I don't. I can't sell prints of the subject matter legally (nor would I want to). Nonetheless, I do (simply by virtue of it's creation) own the copyright to the photo I took.

For those interested: The specifics of this piece amount to more than a 'xerox' : The cel setup consists of multiple pieces that must be arranged on top of one another before the photo can be taken. I temporarily register them with paper clips, take the photo, then digitally paint out the clips in photoshop. (I'm just providing this context as to your discussion - I don't mean to imply that this makes my photo a Picasso)

I'm not sure where the idea that the original artist(s) weren't acknowledged came from - I didn't state one way or the other. But I suppose they weren't - as with most animation, the artists of any particular cel often go unattributed. The backgrounds on the other hand can sometimes be attributed (sometimes they're even signed!). In this particular case, I don't know the original artists beyond the studio (Toei), and they definitely weren't named on the show.

 

Edited April 12, 2020 by Lobstrosity

[Lobstrosity]

8 hours ago, Will_K said:

Not sure if the question has been asked...  Did Netflix give any credit/acknowledgement to the piece that was featured ??  Not the SOURCE of the image.  But did Netflix credit the copyright holders of the character?

Like XXX is copyright XXX.  XXX was drawn by XXX.   Image of XXX was published in XXX by XXX.

And yeah, can you provide a link to your image ?

 

They definitely credit Hasbro throughout, I can't recall if they credit the animation studio or not (Toei)

[Lobstrosity]

2 hours ago, Michael Browning said:

Wouldn't it be nice if the original poster let us know what the image was and what the show was -- or at least reply to his own thread?

Sorry mate - only get an opportunity to post once a day or so

[Lobstrosity]

Here are some screen captures from the episode itself:
The first appears at 24:10, the second at 40:09

[PhilipB2k17]

5 hours ago, Lobstrosity said:

The piece is a cel setup and background from "My Little Pony", from the "The Toys That Made Us" (season 3 episode 3). Here's the setup: 

 

[ESeffinga]

Ah, so it’s not comic art. I think most of us were assuming it was, given the venue here and where it was taken from. I certainly made assumptions to that effect. 

Wiki says Sunbow productions and Marvel Studios produced the original show. No idea who owns the property now, other than Hasbro, and since they give them credit throughout, that might be good enough for them.

Certainly the animation team never gets credit in these situations, which is a shame.

As to the use of your photo of the cel setup, yeah. I dunno. I still fall on the fence with it. It’s certainly your shot.  They should have absolutely contacted you up front for usage. And in point of fact, they might have gotten a higher res image out of you, unless what is up on CAF was super high res, and done a credit for you in exchange. That’s (un)common courtesy.
 

In any rate, if you wanted to send them an email letting them know you know, and angling for a photo credit after the fact, why not?

I very sincerely doubt you’ll see any monetary compensation. You’d have to sue for it, and that’s gonna all go to the lawyer and then some.

Tout it on CAF, animation forums and the Brony board or wherever if you like. I would think that if it was a screen used cel in the original show, that gives it way more star power (value) than that it appeared for a couple seconds on a throwaway nostalgia trip show after the fact.

I dunno anyone will ever be nostalgic for a nostalgia show. I also doubt the show runners are swimming in cash, or getting bank from Netflix for the programming. I think it’s filler fare.

Just my .02€
 

[newshane]

12 hours ago, Michael Browning said:

Wouldn't it be nice if the original poster let us know what the image was and what the show was -- or at least reply to his own thread?

Wow. A little patience? 
 

I’d bet a 12 pack that you’re under 30.

[JadeGiant]

11 hours ago, Lobstrosity said:

The piece is a cel setup and background from "My Little Pony", from the "The Toys That Made Us" (season 3 episode 3). Here's the setup: 

Thanks for sharing the details. Can you show the watermark? 

[alxjhnsn]

I’d ask for credit in the credits section and acknowledgement of the use in a letter (for bragging rights). 

[Mighty Hal]

One other thought: If you request a credit for the shot, the producers might consider replacing the image, instead. It wouldn't be much more difficult than adding a credit, I imagine. Any monetary bump for your image's appearance in the series would likely disappear, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mighty Hal]

Duplicated post

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2020 by Hal Turner

[Lobstrosity]

4 hours ago, JadeGiant said:

Thanks for sharing the details. Can you show the watermark? 

Sure thing. The watermark is actually in that image, but it's (intentionally) hard to see. Here's the bottom right corner with the contrast cranked up:

 

[TheGrayGhost]

 Collectors complain about my watermarks. I post my name like 3-5 times throughout the artwork. Especially to avoid crud like this. 

[JadeGiant]

18 hours ago, Lobstrosity said:

Sure thing. The watermark is actually in that image, but it's (intentionally) hard to see. Here's the bottom right corner with the contrast cranked up:

 

I have no clue to the intent of the Netflix producer ... but I think it is entirely possible that the watermark was not seen. It is barely visible. I looked for it multiple times and didn't see it and even when you magnified and I went back I can barely see it. I would suggest making a more visible watermark and on more of the actual art if this is a primary concern for you. 

[AndyFish]

Netflix ain't out there with a tin cup selling pencils, I'd find a friendly attorney and send them a pretty nice letter.

[Rick2you2]

3 hours ago, AndyFish said:

Netflix ain't out there with a tin cup selling pencils, I'd find a friendly attorney and send them a pretty nice letter.

A lawyer’s letter will provoke a lawyer’s letter, and that is a fight you cannot win. Netflix has a lot of firepower. I am sure, they will know their is no copyright violation from which serious damages can flow  and the balance of the claim is marginal. Play nice. As my father likes to say, you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Edited April 14, 2020 by Rick2you2

[AndyFish]

11 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

A lawyer’s letter will provoke a lawyer’s letter, and that is a fight you cannot win. Netflix has a lot of firepower. I am sure, they will know their is no copyright violation from which serious damages can flow  and the balance of the claim is marginal. Play nice. As my father likes to say, you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Don’t be so quick to assume that.   I have a lawyer friend and we’ve gone up against much bigger law groups, I’m not saying send them a fire and brimstone toned letter, but one that recognizes they used your property for promotion without your permission.   I guess I should rephrase it to “find a friendly competent lawyer”.  

Were you damaged?   Not at all.   But at the very least they may send you something as a good will gesture and whoever chose the shot in the first place will get a reminder to not just grab stuff off the internet.       

[Rick2you2]

3 hours ago, AndyFish said:

Don’t be so quick to assume that.   I have a lawyer friend and we’ve gone up against much bigger law groups, I’m not saying send them a fire and brimstone toned letter, but one that recognizes they used your property for promotion without your permission.   I guess I should rephrase it to “find a friendly competent lawyer”.  

Were you damaged?   Not at all.   But at the very least they may send you something as a good will gesture and whoever chose the shot in the first place will get a reminder to not just grab stuff off the internet.       

Businesses of any size will refer it to their legal department. If you must send a lawyer’s letter it should be written in a way that isn’t even close to fire and brimstone, with no implicit threats of legal action unless you can back it up. I deal with this all the time; I am a lawyer. And by the way, size isn’t relevant. If anything, small has the advantage because the response is likely to be handled by a junior attorney who is told to make the problem go away instead of a meat eater who thinks he can “prove himself” by being tough. Of course, you can still run into an a- hole who tries to be tough in any event. The profession has two many of them.

[Peter L]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/thr-esq/court-rules-photographer-gave-up-licensing-rights-by-posting-instagram-1290170?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR3KBkumofXHfXSw5CqNAzX1NWVupSr2HsMJko-FiK2CDV4zpL7uQPDUxGQ

I guess you have to do what you can live with.  I personally would go with the bragging rights.  

[TommyRaiko]

I do think that what you decide to do kinda depends on what you want the outcome to be, what you're willing to live with, and how far you're willing to go toward those ends.

I am reminded, however, of the story of Ray Bradbury and EC Comics. Mark Evanier (among many others) have told it over the years: essentially, EC Comics writer/editor Al Feldstein wrote a comic that was based on two Ray Bradbury stories. When Bradbury discovered this, he wrote them a nice letter complementing them on the adaptation and observing that his credit and fee had been omitted--something that we'd perhaps call a passive-aggressive approach. Ultimately, EC responded and the result was an ongoing and official relationship where EC adapted several Bradbury stories.

In this scenario, there's probably not the possibility of an ongoing relationship as with Bradbury and EC. And modern society is perhaps more litigious and sensitive-to-accountability issues than in 1950s comics. But setting aside possible credit or payment, if what you really want is for the filmmakers to know that they appropriated your image and for them to know that you know that they did, then an approach like Ray Bradbury's--a chiding passive-aggressive letter, delivered directly or perhaps through your lawyer--might an appropriate approach to that end.