Sijun Forums :: View topic

eyewoo · Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2004 8:39 am

I uploaded some portraits of "Blade Runner" characters to another artwork site. The portraits were done using screen captures as reference. The site administrators would not post them, claiming they were copyright infringements... Are they right???

Here's an example of one:

Wouldn't they be considered something like fan-art?
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

eyewoo · Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:12 pm

Anyone know anything about "fan-art" and copyright infringement???
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

IDrawGirls · Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:24 pm

There's the legal corner forum at wetcanvas.
You can ask there if you want.
Maybe that's already answered somewhere.
Btw ... you want to make profit or not?

http://wetcanvas.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=79

eyewoo · Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2004 2:11 pm

Profit..? I was thinking I might try to sell a few signed prints on eBay...
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

B0b · Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:47 am

if u were trying to sell a screenshot of the film i could see a copyright infringment, but not if your selling your own artwork just using the film as ref..

IDrawGirls · Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 6:47 am

Weird. I read that it is not ok to sell them.
But you may show them if you call them studies.
But of course I'm not sure of anything ...

eyewoo · Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 8:09 am

I've posted this thread on several forums and here's how it seems to work. If a picture is identifiable as an actor or a scene in a film, the copyright is owned by the actor/production company. However, it is OK to post them as long as a proper copyright credit is also posted - probably to the film production company. Selling prints is not legal.

On the other hand, selling such prints does seem to be done quite a lot and most film company's don't try to prosecute. There are apparently some exceptions, like the folks who own Star Trek. They have shut sites down for copyright infringements.

So, the pictures are legal if I properly credit them, but I can't sell them. However, if I did sell them, unless they became really hot, there would probably not be any repercussions...
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

Tomasis · Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:16 am

why dont make them unidenticable .. i know that you eyewoo are good artist Smile

Socar MYLES · Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:32 am

You're probably talking about Epilogue, here--we don't accept fan art--it's mentioned in our FAQ. Sorry. We just reject it under the blanket "copyright infringement" message, regardless of legality. Unless you're painting copyrighted characters or other properties at the request of the copyright holders, you can't post it on Epilogue.
_________________
Dignity isn't important. It's everything.

www.gorblimey.com - art

eyewoo · Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 10:45 am

ah-ha... Sorry to hear that Socar... I guess my Blade Runner pics are indeed fan art... I should read the FAQ again, eh...
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art

ColdKodiak · Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 11:55 am

Then how about those street vendors around public places that sell portraits of actors and what not that they drew? That illegal?
_________________
http://kontinue.com/coldkodiak/

Derek · member Member # Joined: 23 Apr 2001 Posts: 139

Yep, it is. Not only can legal action be taken, but the actual copyright holders can sieze anything you've created and have you assist them in tracking down anything you may have sold. A number of actors are getting involved in this as well... some idiot recently used an image of Jennifer Love Hewitt, taken for a pretty well known magazine, and made it the basis for a really poorly painted over piece. Not only did he sell it, but it's been published in at least two other forms. I can't wait to see what happens when the dust settles. Characters, likenesses, intellectual property... don't screw with these things. It shows a lack of respect, originality, and sense. As for fan art, I'm not sure why anyone would want that out in the open or market it for profit. Most fan art types never get much beyond that, and it generally means stear clear. Not that I don't do my bit from time to time, but it's for myself only.
_________________
Anything one man can imagine, others can make real...

bearsclover · member Member # Joined: 03 May 2002 Posts: 274

Fan art is a sticky subject, but I think (think) that some of it can be fair use. However, I wouldn't know how to define "fair use." I do remember reading an article about how "fans" can show pictures of their favorites online, because they are commenting on how they are fans. This was judged fair use, because they were commenting on the copyrighted material. Also, the pictures being shown online were low-res. Not anything that you could make prints from, or anything.

I have done a lot fan art in my day, to be honest. It's sort of an overlap from my art education in L.A. We always did a lot of celebrity art�we needed to be able to show that we could do likenesses (this is especially important in Los Angeles, with its movie industry). I did a lot of portraits of movie stars, inspired by movies, etc., and this was encouraged by my teachers. This, of course, was some years ago, but I would imagine that a certain amount of entertainment industry art is still being done in art schools, especially in Southern California.

I never did sell prints of any of my work, but would sometimes part with an original for a price. *Shrug* There are always collectors who love to buy that kind of stuff, and I found it a lot of fun to do. However, I wouldn't advertise selling any celebrity art online. I haven't sold any in a few years (giving gifts to friends doesn't count!), but if I do ever sell any in the future, I'll be very discreet.
_________________
Madness takes its toll - please have exact change.

MadSamoan · Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 11:23 am

Look up court cases involving Gary Saderup to get a good idea of what you're in for if you sell unlicensed prints of copyrighted images or celebrities.

wigin · Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:24 pm

sounds crazy... hmm dont know if i would ever do fan art for money but i know quite alot of people who do commission work that would be considered FAnart ie: Wolverine in such and such enviroment. I guess that would be illegal 0_o..

I was wondering though how abot doing charicatures of actors or famous people and selling it to magazines or news paper? wouldnt that be considered fan art in a way? This gets pretty sticky and interesting.
_________________
http://plouffe.f2o.org

B0b · Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:28 pm

interesting info, wonder how the american legal system affects the english system..

Rychan · junior member Member # Joined: 22 Apr 2003 Posts: 44

Fair use is not a well defined legal area. It is very much up to a judge to weigh the specifics of each case. There are many factors that can count for or against you. Using for profit, btw, is one of the biggest that can count against you.

http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm#test is a handy reference

mukkinese · junior member Member # Joined: 22 Nov 2003 Posts: 11

Actually it's perfectly legal to take commissions to paint copyrighted images, but you can't advertise your willingness to do 'named' copyrighted images. That is, you can take a commission to paint Wolverine quite happily, but you can't advertise that you will paint Wolverine. You would have to say something like; "I will paint any character of your choice". You're selling a service not an image.

It's the actual publishing and/or selling of copyrighted images that is illegal ( under civil law ). By advertising; "I will draw Wolverine", you would be using a copyrighted ( trademarked ) name to promote your business.

Caricatures are covered by this. Additionaly caricatures used in mags and newspapers are considered satire and that is firmly established as fair use.

In any case the publisher takes the risk not the artist ( unless you claim copyright ).