DC Tells Artist to Stay Out of NFT Business. 1 1

[Hulk213]

Didn’t even bother to read your reply. Pirating is wrong and illegal. 

[vodou]

23 minutes ago, Mftonto said:

Didn’t even bother to read your reply. Pirating is wrong and illegal. 

Wow. You're gonna go real far in life  

[Hulk213]

Should I be offended by that comment? I don’t get what you’re saying. 

[Rick2you2]

32 minutes ago, vodou said:

Wow. You're gonna go real far in life  

Your reply vanished.

[Hulk213]

36 minutes ago, vodou said:

Wow. You're gonna go real far in life  

 

4 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Your reply vanished.

Thank you

[Hulk213]

37 minutes ago, vodou said:

Wow. You're gonna go real far in life  

Should I be offended by that comment? I don’t get what you’re saying

[Bird]

my take: you said that you didn't even read the reply...how can you have a discussion if you are not willing to even read the reply? How can you challenge your mindset and grow critical thinking skills if you will not even expose yourself to a contradicting opinion? And to state it as a badge of honor of some sort as if you know all that can be said on the subject comes off as arrogant and close-minded.

or

tree fiddy

[Rick2you2]

19 hours ago, Mftonto said:

Insightful. I don’t understand how a commission not perfectly reproducible and does that even matter? Ryan Stegmans commissions have turned into covers. Reproduced. So someone saw value in using a commissioned piece of art to sell their product.

Art is art. Who says it has to be perfectly reproduced to have value? I honestly don’t understand what you are saying here. How is art reproduction a big difference?

And, IP violations need to be addressed even if they are difficult. And there are viable options for people / companies who are infringed upon. Disney scares the out of people. Because they will send a cease desist or even take you to court. They have to. It weakens their mark.

Disney can do this because they have the resources. This goes back to my one question, how would DC stop this? Or even attempt to monitor this?

NFT is not an unknown. Regardless if someone sells an NFT for 60 million or not. What does the price matter? Honest question. Is it because that amounts gets noticed?

The NFT companies purposely put this out to attract attention. That way they can get more people looking to make money off their art. NFT companies charge a fee to mint the art. 
 

To me it sounds like a pyramid scheme.
 

I realize you are in a spot being a lawyer, and do respect that, and that you have to be careful what you say. 

I’m just trying to understand and make sense of all this. 

Let's take this from the top. Slowly. 

1. Is the issue about a copyright violation or a trademark violation. They are very different. In general, copying a page of art is a copyright violation. Copying a character is a trademark violation (assuming it is trademarked).

2. If Stegman produces art in a commission, and uses a recognizable character like Spider-Man, it is probably a trademark violation (without permission) but not a copyright violation. If someone takes the commissioned piece and reproduces it (without permission), it is a violation of Marvel's trademark and Stegman's copyright (unless Stegman assigned or sold his copyright to Marvel, for example, or the piece was done before 1976 when the law on "work for hire" was changed).

3. If Stegman uses a trademarked character, without permission, it is not "fair use". There is no such defense for trademark violations. If someone took Stegman's piece and copied it even for his own use, it is also not "fair use". That also applies, by the way, to copying music. Fair use is a narrow category of defenses under copyright law, like critical commentary, or for educational purposes. Don't try to invoke it if you don't really know what you are doing.

4. A lot of copyright and trademark rights are not enforced because there isn't enough value in their enforcement or they are not noticed by the owners. With copyright, you either can recover statutory damages if the piece is registered (which is easy), or common law damages--but only if you can show the violator cost you money by denying you some gross income, or likely did so. That's a tough standard for this stuff and not a cheap one to fight (although, you might recover counsel fees back).

5. Trademarks can be lost if they are not enforced. Ever hear of cellophane? It used to be a product name until the owner didn't try to enforce its rights to the name. But, there is no need to do so if the user of the trademarked item has consent from the owner to use it, either expressly or impliedly. Since there seems to be a general understanding that pen and ink commissons may be done with trademarked characters, implied consent would be the theory to use. 

6. The letter from DC changes things. There is no implied consent for NFT or other digital art. The letter makes that very clear. So while there may still be consent for pen and ink commissions, it does not exist, if it every did, for digital work. Period.

I have to make a few clarifications here. First, don’t forget that any right can be sold or transferred by contract. So, for example, DC may still own the right to reproduce any art it publishes, and have an assigned right to sue for copyright infringement.

Furthermore, even a commissioned piece can be a violation of copyright law in some cases. For example, if someone copies a layout for a character in which the rights are owned by DC, they can be sued. So, anyone buying a recreation ought to make sure it states something indicating it is not an original and done “in honor of” or something along those lines, which distinguishes it.

And there is always a generic contract right of ownership, which varies by contract. For example, DC may have language in its contracts with freelancers forbidding reproduction of any of its characters unless express permission is given. I don’t know what is in DC’s contracts, but given the language of the letter, that one wouldn’t surprise me here.

hope you are all now better understanding why this is not an easy subject.

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Rick2you2

[Rick2you2]

25 minutes ago, Mftonto said:

 

Thank you

Don't thank me so quickly. What was it all about?

[Hulk213]

35 minutes ago, Bird said:

my take: you said that you didn't even read the reply...how can you have a discussion if you are not willing to even read the reply? How can you challenge your mindset and grow critical thinking skills if you will not even expose yourself to a contradicting opinion? And to state it as a badge of honor of some sort as if you know all that can be said on the subject comes off as arrogant and close-minded.

or

tree fiddy

So it was meant to offend.

Is the thread about pirating? No. Is pirating illegal, yes. No need to discuss. My mindset is very clear. No need to read through a page of nonsense from a wind bag. 

I wasn’t being arrogant. I have been very polite. And I have genuinely listened to those that are actually talking about this thread. 

Someone who openly says that they go to places on the web to steal is the one looking for the badge. 

But you know this. You seem like a guy that loves to hold court and give out the badges.
 

So, open your mind, stay on topic, and maybe, you might go real far in life.

 

 

 

[Bird]

5 minutes ago, Mftonto said:

But you know this. You seem like a guy that loves to hold court and give out the badges.

you are as accurate here as you were earlier

my mistake is thinking you were being genuine

Your post was dismissive. This one too. So go ahead and act the victim but you won't get any traction from me.

Edited March 13, 2021 by Bird

[Hulk213]

23 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Let's take this from the top. Slowly. 

1. Is the issue about a copyright violation or a trademark violation. They are very different. In general, copying a page of art is a copyright violation. Copying a character is a trademark violation (assuming it is trademarked).

2. If Stegman produces art in a commission, and uses a recognizable character like Spider-Man, it is probably a trademark violation (without permission) but not a copyright violation. If someone takes the commissioned piece and reproduces it (without permission), it is a violation of Marvel's trademark and Stegman's copyright (unless Stegman assigned or sold his copyright to Marvel, for example, or the piece was done before 1976 when the law on "work for hire" was changed).

3. If Stegman uses a trademarked character, without permission, it is not "fair use". There is no such defense for trademark violations. If someone took Stegman's piece and copied it even for his own use, it is also not "fair use". That also applies, by the way, to copying music. Fair use is a narrow category of defenses under copyright law, like critical commentary, or for educational purposes. Don't try to invoke it if you don't really know what you are doing.

4. A lot of copyright and trademark rights are not enforced because there isn't enough value in their enforcement or they are not noticed by the owners. With copyright, you either can recover statutory damages if the piece is registered (which is easy), or common law damages--but only if you can show the violator cost you money by denying you some gross income, or likely did so. That's a tough standard for this stuff and not a cheap one to fight (although, you might recover counsel fees back).

5. Trademarks can be lost if they are not enforced. Ever hear of cellophane? It used to be a product name until the owner didn't try to enforce its rights to the name. But, there is no need to do so if the user of the trademarked item has consent from the owner to use it, either expressly or impliedly. Since there seems to be a general understanding that pen and ink commissons may be done with trademarked characters, implied consent would be the theory to use. 

6. The letter from DC changes things. There is no implied consent for NFT or other digital art. The letter makes that very clear. So while there may still be consent for pen and ink commissions, it does not exist, if it every did, for digital work. Period.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Bird said:

you are as accurate here as you were earlier

Your post was dismissive. This one too. So go ahead and act the victim but you won't get any traction from me.

Ok boomer. 

[Hulk213]

33 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Let's take this from the top. Slowly. 

1. Is the issue about a copyright violation or a trademark violation. They are very different. In general, copying a page of art is a copyright violation. Copying a character is a trademark violation (assuming it is trademarked).

2. If Stegman produces art in a commission, and uses a recognizable character like Spider-Man, it is probably a trademark violation (without permission) but not a copyright violation. If someone takes the commissioned piece and reproduces it (without permission), it is a violation of Marvel's trademark and Stegman's copyright (unless Stegman assigned or sold his copyright to Marvel, for example, or the piece was done before 1976 when the law on "work for hire" was changed).

3. If Stegman uses a trademarked character, without permission, it is not "fair use". There is no such defense for trademark violations. If someone took Stegman's piece and copied it even for his own use, it is also not "fair use". That also applies, by the way, to copying music. Fair use is a narrow category of defenses under copyright law, like critical commentary, or for educational purposes. Don't try to invoke it if you don't really know what you are doing.

4. A lot of copyright and trademark rights are not enforced because there isn't enough value in their enforcement or they are not noticed by the owners. With copyright, you either can recover statutory damages if the piece is registered (which is easy), or common law damages--but only if you can show the violator cost you money by denying you some gross income, or likely did so. That's a tough standard for this stuff and not a cheap one to fight (although, you might recover counsel fees back).

5. Trademarks can be lost if they are not enforced. Ever hear of cellophane? It used to be a product name until the owner didn't try to enforce its rights to the name. But, there is no need to do so if the user of the trademarked item has consent from the owner to use it, either expressly or impliedly. Since there seems to be a general understanding that pen and ink commissons may be done with trademarked characters, implied consent would be the theory to use. 

6. The letter from DC changes things. There is no implied consent for NFT or other digital art. The letter makes that very clear. So while there may still be consent for pen and ink commissions, it does not exist, if it every did, for digital work. Period.

 

Very informative. I think I hung with you. You’re making the distinction that pencil and pen have been an implied / accepted practice so it’s okay. Do I have that right?
 

I’m still not getting the difference between a pen and ink commission versus a digital commission. How you create the art matters? Serious question, do you think DC is actually giving consent to artist commissions? It seems they are turning a blind eye. As long as you are not mass producing the commission to make money they are okay with it.

Commissions keep fans and artist happy, but I can’t imagine DC would actual come out and say they give consent to commissions.

[Rick2you2]

8 minutes ago, Mftonto said:

Very informative. I think I hung with you. You’re making the distinction that pencil and pen have been an implied / accepted practice so it’s okay. Do I have that right?
 

I’m still not getting the difference between a pen and ink commission versus a digital commission. How you create the art matters? Serious question, do you think DC is actually giving consent to artist commissions? It seems they are turning a blind eye. As long as you are not mass producing the commission to make money they are okay with it.

Commissions keep fans and artist happy, but I can’t imagine DC would actual come out and say they give consent to commissions.

"Turning a blind eye" is implied consent. DC won't say so, or give "express consent", but there are too many artists who deal regularly with DC and who also go to shows and do commissions for me to think there was no implied consent. Hell, look at Neal Adams. If any artist knows this area of "comic book law", it's probably him, and he does a lot of commission work.

Don't forget that consent is usually revocable whenever the consenter wants to revoke (there are exceptions, however, like reliance on prior consent by the beneficiary, but now we are getting too much into legal terrain).

[Rick2you2]

18 minutes ago, Mftonto said:

I’m still not getting the difference between a pen and ink commission versus a digital commission. How you create the art matters?

From DC's standpoint, yes. Primarily because of what a buyer can do with it.

[Hulk213]

It is a slippery slope. And thank you for not going into legal territory, I barely kept up with your last reply. If you don’t mind me asking you questions, I have one more.
 

When a pen and ink commission is digitally scanned and someone buys the digital art. Isn’t that that pretty much the same implied concentration? Digital is just another medium to make art. 
 

Like digital artist selling their art prints as one offs now.
 

Just  because this is NFT art, and people are paying insane amounts of money, how can DC really tell artist they can’t do it? 
 

I get that prices some artist are getting are high, but price shouldn’t matter. 
 

Because NFT is new shouldn’t matter. At some point in time commissions were new. 

[Rick2you2]

54 minutes ago, Mftonto said:

It is a slippery slope. And thank you for not going into legal territory, I barely kept up with your last reply. If you don’t mind me asking you questions, I have one more.
 

When a pen and ink commission is digitally scanned and someone buys the digital art. Isn’t that that pretty much the same implied concentration? Digital is just another medium to make art. 
 

Like digital artist selling their art prints as one offs now.
 

Just  because this is NFT art, and people are paying insane amounts of money, how can DC really tell artist they can’t do it? 
 

I get that prices some artist are getting are high, but price shouldn’t matter. 
 

Because NFT is new shouldn’t matter. At some point in time commissions were new. 

If someone scans in a pen and ink page and sells it, that is going to be a copyright violation. The primary holder is the artist. But, the owner of the scanned in page is a secondary holder who owned the pen and ink page. So now, you have 2 violations.

DC can do so because it owns the trademark in the character. That carries forward into the commission, thereby getting the artist and the buyer in trouble.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Rick2you2

[Mephisto]

11 hours ago, Bird said:

I was sued by RIAA 20+ years ago, Kazaa Lite! Settled for $3500. I don't illegally download anything as a result. Back then they had a lot of success in suing people, just not for the amounts initially claimed as losses.

And it all started because I wanted to see Pamela and Tommy Lee! What a multi-tasker that guy is!

I can’t believe you got hit that early on. The one girl I knew that got sued was probably mid to late 2000’s since she was in college at the time. She settled for a similar dollar amount of $4,000.

[Bird]

2 minutes ago, Mephisto said:

I can’t believe you got hit that early on. The one girl I knew that got sued was probably mid to late 2000’s since she was in college at the time. She settled for a similar dollar amount of $4,000.

it was between 1999-2003, probably at the end of that time as I recall it was kazaa lite

Edited March 14, 2021 by Bird
looked up time kazaa lite came out

[Mephisto]

1 minute ago, Bird said:

it was between 1998-2001 because I only lived in that house for 2-3 years

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. I used Napster a lot my senior year of high school so that was 2000-2001 and I would always move stuff after I downloaded it as at the time I had heard you were more likely to have a legal issue if you were allowing others to download vs downloading stuff yourself. I’m pretty sure that girl said she got hit for having X numbers of songs available for others to download. I can’t remember how many but as you mentioned they originally tried suing for a much higher dollar amount...something like $800 per song and I believe she said it was hundreds of different songs.