|
Post by james on Apr 18, 2022 17:02:56 GMT -5
I’ve always wondered how do commissioned pieces of art using the big two’s characters work exactly? Is it written into every artist’s contract that they can make money off of characters even if they no longer work for the company?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2022 18:02:52 GMT -5
My opinion (backed up by zero facts or sources): it’s akin to a gentleman’s agreement. With some companies more strict than others, e.g. I can’t imagine Disney would let a lot go as far as Mickey Mouse is concerned, but if an ex-DC employee wants to draw Alan Scott at a convention, DC will turn a blind eye.
Hopefully someone has a fact to share rather than an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 18, 2022 18:28:25 GMT -5
Original art is different than print. An artist can draw a character if it's not for commercial use. The fact that he sells it is more in line with fine art than commercial art. If he/ she publishes it, he/she should get permission from the Company. That said, the companies probably could sue to stop it, they may or may not win, but the will pass off a lot of artists they need.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Apr 18, 2022 19:41:09 GMT -5
My opinion (backed up by zero facts or sources): it’s akin to a gentleman’s agreement. With some companies more strict than others, e.g. I can’t imagine Disney would let a lot go as far as Mickey Mouse is concerned, but if an ex-DC employee wants to draw Alan Scott at a convention, DC will turn a blind eye. Hopefully someone has a fact to share rather than an opinion. This is pretty much it--the publishers would get a ton of bad press if they cracked down on artists doing commissions or sketches at this point. Don Rosa used to put a Disney copyright on commissions he did, but a Google search shows that he doesn't do it on all of them.
|
|
|
Post by james on Apr 18, 2022 19:53:25 GMT -5
My opinion (backed up by zero facts or sources): it’s akin to a gentleman’s agreement. With some companies more strict than others, e.g. I can’t imagine Disney would let a lot go as far as Mickey Mouse is concerned, but if an ex-DC employee wants to draw Alan Scott at a convention, DC will turn a blind eye. Hopefully someone has a fact to share rather than an opinion. This is pretty much it--the publishers would get a ton of bad press if they cracked down on artists doing commissions or sketches at this point. Don Rosa used to put a Disney copyright on commissions he did, but a Google search shows that he doesn't do it on all of them. That makes sense. I guess the 2,000-5,000.00 for a full action spread of The Avengers, for example, John Byrne could charge isn’t worth Disney’s time to recoup.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 18, 2022 20:07:18 GMT -5
They wouldn't sue for money. It would be a cease and desist suit.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2022 20:44:29 GMT -5
The grey area is mass produced prints sold (sometimes by artists) using trademarked characters. Opinions are split on these in some circles. I hear complaints about some vendors who set up in artist alley at shows and only sell these prints, not actually make the art, just sell prints they (sometimes) hired artists to make so they can sell them. I hear a lot of actual artists get upset about these vendors because they are not selling their own art and aren't artists, so take space away from actual artists in the alley, and often wind up getting more traffic and sales than the actual artists. A few such vendors had some issues at some of the bigger cons, as freelancers who worked for the big 2 saw their work being sold by these vendors as prints, which they never authorized using Marvel/DC characters, which the publishers never authorized, and wound up getting cease and desist letters from those freelancer's attorneys by the end of the show and from the publishers after the shows. It was a few years back (pre-pandemic) and I can't remember which show-I think it was on the west coast and possibly a Wonder Con or Emerald City where the cease and desists were issued that the article I read was about, but I'm not certain. I have heard such gripes about that kind of vendor at shows at some more local shows though.
-M
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 19, 2022 7:18:52 GMT -5
Clearly, making unauthorized prints and selling them is a copyright violation. Creating original art comes more under freedom of expression. There is also the editorial/commercial divide. I could use Superman for an editorial cartoon, or to illustrate an essay or editorial in a magazine (noting the copyright) but not in an advertisement.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2022 7:24:09 GMT -5
Clearly, making unauthorized prints and selling them is a copyright violation. Creating original art comes more under freedom of expression. There is also the editorial/commercial divide. I could use Superman for an editorial cartoon, or to illustrate an essay or editorial in a magazine (noting the copyright) but not in an advertisement. But there's a lot of gray area in those "unauthorized prints" like the guy who uses another artist's pencils but ink and colors the prints himself and then sells them. Whose are is that in an assembly line industry? -M
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 19, 2022 7:31:13 GMT -5
Clearly, making unauthorized prints and selling them is a copyright violation. Creating original art comes more under freedom of expression. There is also the editorial/commercial divide. I could use Superman for an editorial cartoon, or to illustrate an essay or editorial in a magazine (noting the copyright) but not in an advertisement. But there's a lot of gray area in those "unauthorized prints" like the guy who uses another artist's pencils but ink and colors the prints himself and then sells them. Whose are is that in an assembly line industry? -M That might not violate the character copyright, but it might violate the original Artist's rights. Again, once you make commercial prints. It gets dicey.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 19, 2022 8:08:49 GMT -5
They wouldn't sue for money. It would be a cease and desist suit. Except they could. The C&D is the classic letter saying quit infringing our intellectual property. If the party infringing doesn’t cease and desist and a lawsuit is necessitated then a part of the suit can be disgorgement of profits. Barring an agreement with the rights holder (in this case the OP indicated DC and Marvell) making profit off their intellectual property is infringement. The reason they aren’t going after the artists doing the commissions because it would be a PR disaster and because it’s not hurting their bottom line. But it is absolutely infringement.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Apr 19, 2022 11:19:15 GMT -5
My opinion (backed up by zero facts or sources): it’s akin to a gentleman’s agreement. With some companies more strict than others, e.g. I can’t imagine Disney would let a lot go as far as Mickey Mouse is concerned, but if an ex-DC employee wants to draw Alan Scott at a convention, DC will turn a blind eye. Hopefully someone has a fact to share rather than an opinion. Another reason to despise Disney nypost.com/2019/07/06/disney-denies-dads-request-to-put-spider-man-on-4-year-old-sons-grave/Nevermind the fact that Disney had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of Spider-Man, but hey, gotta protect their property.
|
|
|
Post by james on Apr 19, 2022 13:48:16 GMT -5
My opinion (backed up by zero facts or sources): it’s akin to a gentleman’s agreement. With some companies more strict than others, e.g. I can’t imagine Disney would let a lot go as far as Mickey Mouse is concerned, but if an ex-DC employee wants to draw Alan Scott at a convention, DC will turn a blind eye. Hopefully someone has a fact to share rather than an opinion. Another reason to despise Disney nypost.com/2019/07/06/disney-denies-dads-request-to-put-spider-man-on-4-year-old-sons-grave/Nevermind the fact that Disney had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of Spider-Man, but hey, gotta protect their property. Disgraceful! What would happen if the family went early one morning and placed a figure or etching at the gravesite. I was at the cemetery where my mom and dad are buried and I saw a few Spider-Man figures placed at children’s graves. Who knew that Disney could actually request to have them removed. I read this right after reading that Amazon employees were “rewarded “ for all their hard work on Easter Sunday by being entered in a raffle for , hold on to your hats, a free bottle of water and a bag of chips! I mean WTF!
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 19, 2022 22:03:54 GMT -5
Before you pile on Disney too much, part of the trademark law requires the rightsholder to defend their trademark or risk losing it. Their actions are within that requirement. Now, there are ways of protecting the trademark without looking like you are slapping around a grieving family (or a daycare center, as they did, back in the 90s). Not being a trademark lawyer, I wonder if creating a special memorial image for use in these situations, with some nominal exchange (charitable contribution or token fee) might be a way to still protect the trademark and garner positive publicity. It might create a loophole that could give an opening for others to cry foul and challenge the trademark; but, like I said, not my field.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Apr 22, 2022 10:37:53 GMT -5
I know a couple of former comics creators who do both commissions and sell prints featuring Marvel and DC characters. The print runs on his prints are extremely low, maybe 10 copies each.
I think the big two turn a blind eye to such small runs, and to commissions. I mean, how can you keep a fan from drawing an image of your character? Same for "civilian" and pro artists.
I do remember a few years ago, when Marvel sued Gary Friedrich for selling Ghost Rider prints at cons. Of course, Friedrich was currently suing Marvel over ownership of the character, so there was some underlying animosity already.
|
|