copyright issues with commissioned pieces

Brother J · Post by **Brother J** » Tue May 23, 2006 6:57 pm

I thought this was an interesting question, so I moved it to what I thought was a more appropriate area of the boards:

Vault-Keeper wrote: And why doesn't someone address my questions about the legality of artists doing commissions of characters they don't own the rights to?

Is this a rampant violation of ALL character copyrights?

Maybe some of the professional artists that post here might be able to shed some light on the legalities involved in doing commissions of characters they own NO rights to, nor compensate the true owners for.

My guess would be because commission pieces are supposed to be for private use. The question could be then is what rules should be in effect once someone posts a scan/pic of their commissioned piece of art on the internet for all to see. Good question. Can anyone shed any light on this?

dellamorte · Post by **dellamorte** » Tue May 23, 2006 7:41 pm

As far as I understand it commissioned artwork of copyrighted characters is illegal. I think it's allowed because it's more or less harmless. the vast majority of these pieces sit in private collections or at most get a pic posted on a message board. The companies are not losing any money if anything they gain a bit of recognition. I saw this at the NYC show. Artists who had never drawn a Valiant character before were doing commissions and from that those commissions they were asked to do others. It benefited the artist, the fan and in a far lesser way the company who owns the characters.

DC doesn't care if artist x draws Superman for fan a at a con. But I bet if fan a took the art and tried to profit from it by making a poster or a litho than DC would care.

TimeWillTell · Post by **TimeWillTell** » Tue May 23, 2006 8:38 pm

As far as I understand it commissioned artwork of copyrighted characters is illegal. I think it's allowed because it's more or less harmless. the vast majority of these pieces sit in private collections or at most get a pic posted on a message board. The companies are not losing any money if anything they gain a bit of recognition. I saw this at the NYC show. Artists who had never drawn a Valiant character before were doing commissions and from that those commissions they were asked to do others. It benefited the artist, the fan and in a far lesser way the company who owns the characters.

DC doesn't care if artist x draws Superman for fan a at a con. But I bet if fan a took the art and tried to profit from it by making a poster or a litho than DC would care.

Ahem... As I was saying in another thread....

Artwork... As a courtesy, most publishers return the artwork to the creator to do with as they please, even though they (the publisher) OWNS that artwork. Is creates a secondary market that the publishers are not necessarily involved in. These pieces are bought and sold, whatever.

However, once again, permission should be obtained from the rightful owner of the character for a commissioned piece and printed on any piece created if it is to be used for any reason other than private use.

-TWT

greg · Post by **greg** » Tue May 23, 2006 9:00 pm

The only publicized objections to commissioned works that I can think of have been the "inappropriate images" (as deemed by DC Comics) of Batman and Robin.

In general, commissions are a "win-win" for artist & publisher, so long as the work is true to the nature of the character.

Strictly speaking, the publisher can legally object to any unauthorized creations, though they seldom do for "one-of-a-kind" commissions. The creation of copies of "one-of-a-kind" commissions (even tasteful, high-quality ones) are much more likely to draw the ire of the publisher. The line has to be drawn somewhere..

TimeWillTell · Post by **TimeWillTell** » Tue May 23, 2006 9:42 pm

Greg is 100% correct here.
-TWT

dellamorte · Post by **dellamorte** » Tue May 23, 2006 9:55 pm

Greg is 100% correct here.

That's the same damn thing I said. Greg is just a lot more educated than I am so his words come out all pretty where as I stumble all over myself.

greg · Post by **greg** » Tue May 23, 2006 10:23 pm

dellamorte wrote:As far as I understand it commissioned artwork of copyrighted characters is illegal. I think it's allowed because it's more or less harmless. the vast majority of these pieces sit in private collections or at most get a pic posted on a message board. The companies are not losing any money if anything they gain a bit of recognition. I saw this at the NYC show. Artists who had never drawn a Valiant character before were doing commissions and from that those commissions they were asked to do others. It benefited the artist, the fan and in a far lesser way the company who owns the characters.

DC doesn't care if artist x draws Superman for fan a at a con. But I bet if fan a took the art and tried to profit from it by making a poster or a litho than DC would care.

Dellamorte is 100% correct here.

dellamorte · Post by **dellamorte** » Tue May 23, 2006 10:38 pm

Thanks Greg. But you still much smarter than me.

Vault-Keeper · Post by **Vault-Keeper** » Tue May 23, 2006 10:42 pm

So is this why the X-O Manowar prints 'disappeared' at the NY Con?
Was it because the copying of the original, and intended sale thereof, went FAR beyond the innocent nature of the original commissioned piece, thus stretching the fair terms use into illegal territory?

Naw.....Justin's luggage just got lost.....yeah, that's the ticket!

x-omatic · Post by **x-omatic** » Tue May 23, 2006 11:35 pm

Vault-Keeper wrote:So is this why the X-O Manowar prints 'disappeared' at the NY Con?
Was it because the copying of the original, and intended sale thereof, went FAR beyond the innocent nature of the original commissioned piece, thus stretching the fair terms use into illegal territory?

Naw.....Justin's luggage just got lost.....yeah, that's the ticket!

More sour grapes.

Vault-Keeper · Post by **Vault-Keeper** » Wed May 24, 2006 5:21 am

x-omatic wrote:
Vault-Keeper wrote:So is this why the X-O Manowar prints 'disappeared' at the NY Con?
Was it because the copying of the original, and intended sale thereof, went FAR beyond the innocent nature of the original commissioned piece, thus stretching the fair terms use into illegal territory?

Naw.....Justin's luggage just got lost.....yeah, that's the ticket!
More sour grapes.

Sour Grapes??

Did you flunk out Psychology 101?

Sour Grapes over exactly what here?

Your terminology is completely wrong. What another ignorant post from you. I expect nothing less at this point. Why do yo feel the need to ALWAYS pipe in with your stupid comments?

I know,...you just can't help it. Oh well...typical of a Type Zero personality...

cinlach@aol.com · Post by **cinlach@aol.com** » Wed May 24, 2006 6:41 am

i thought this show was cancelled.

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Wed May 24, 2006 6:52 am

cinlach@aol.com wrote:i thought this show was cancelled.

The new CW network brought it back along with 'Seventh Heaven'.

Vault-Keeper · Post by **Vault-Keeper** » Wed May 24, 2006 7:52 am

cinlach@aol.com wrote:i thought this show was cancelled.

It would've been done, but Chris just can't seem to let things go.

Talk about your prick waving and 4th Grade mentality, and there it is for all to see.

TimeWillTell · Post by **TimeWillTell** » Wed May 24, 2006 9:02 am

Yes dellamorte, you are 100% correct. I thought I'd add my two cents to emphasize your position.

-TWT

Vault-Keeper · Post by **Vault-Keeper** » Wed May 24, 2006 9:12 am

TimeWillTell wrote:Yes dellamorte, you are 100% correct. I thought I'd add my two cents to emphasize your position.

-TWT

SO the answer is that it's possibly illegal...yet harmless and a promotion of the characters involved. Just like my copies of the VCB done at cost....imagine that!

x-omatic · Post by **x-omatic** » Wed May 24, 2006 9:17 am

Vault-Keeper wrote:
x-omatic wrote:
Vault-Keeper wrote:So is this why the X-O Manowar prints 'disappeared' at the NY Con?
Was it because the copying of the original, and intended sale thereof, went FAR beyond the innocent nature of the original commissioned piece, thus stretching the fair terms use into illegal territory?

Naw.....Justin's luggage just got lost.....yeah, that's the ticket!
More sour grapes.
Sour Grapes??

Did you flunk out Psychology 101?

Sour Grapes over exactly what here?

Your terminology is completely wrong. What another ignorant post from you. I expect nothing less at this point. Why do yo feel the need to ALWAYS pipe in with your stupid comments?

I know,...you just can't help it. Oh well...typical of a Type Zero personality...

Now you are making person attacks. Nice. Good for you.

Heath · Post by **Heath** » Wed May 24, 2006 9:34 am

Vault-Keeper wrote:
TimeWillTell wrote:Yes dellamorte, you are 100% correct. I thought I'd add my two cents to emphasize your position.

-TWT
SO the answer is that it's possibly illegal...yet harmless and a promotion of the characters involved. Just like my copies of the VCB done at cost....imagine that!

You missed one important point. Even if you're making copies at cost, you still need permission from the copyright owner. You don't. In fact, you've stated that if the copyright owner doesn't like it he can sue you. If that were to happen, you would lose.

U.S. Copyright Office wrote:Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-f ... ml#howmuch

If you use a copyrighted work without authorization, the owner may be entitled to bring an infringement action against you. There are circumstances under the fair use doctrine where a quote or a sample may be used without permission. However, in cases of doubt, the Copyright Office recommends that permission be obtained.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#sued

Examples of those circumstances:

U.S. Copyright Office wrote:quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Your reproductions of the entire document without permission from the copyright holder fall under none of those circumstances - regardless of them being done at cost.

x-omatic · Post by **x-omatic** » Wed May 24, 2006 8:43 pm

Vault-Keeper wrote:
cinlach@aol.com wrote:i thought this show was cancelled.
It would've been done, but Chris just can't seem to let things go.

Talk about your prick waving and 4th Grade mentality, and there it is for all to see.

You have the nerve to post about me and cry that I am not letting it go.
How do you breathe with your head so far up your *SQUEE*?

This thread started because of your post that used me as your example.

Vault-Keeper wrote:
And while your at it, Chris, find out about the legalities surrounding commissions done (for profit or not) in regards to characters NOT owned by the artist doing the commissions. You do just the inking for your "Hired Guns" comic...do you have expressed legal premission from the writer and penciler to reproduce their work for all to see (and copy off of) on the internet? Give me the scoop on all of this and the commissions, Mr. "Chris-Quote-It-All...

Your first post in this thread offers nothing possitive to the issue you wanted so badly to discuss in order to divert attention for your ILLEGAL copies of the VCB.

Hence the sour grapes comment.

Get a clue.

edlockman · Post by **edlockman** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:46 am

I agree with everyone 100%.

I agree with 100% of personal attacks.

I agree with 100% of appendage "waving".

AND I agree with 100% of Asian @$$.

slym2none · Post by **slym2none** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:34 pm

edlockman wrote:I agree with everyone 100%.

Suck-up.

I agree with 100% of personal attacks.

I agree with 100% of appendage "waving".

I don't get in between people when I have no voice in the issue.

AND I agree with 100% of Asian @$$.

I knew I liked this guy!!!

-slym

slym2none · Post by **slym2none** » Sat May 19, 2007 8:30 pm

slym2none wrote:
edlockman wrote:I agree with everyone 100%.
Suck-up.

I agree with 100% of personal attacks.

I agree with 100% of appendage "waving".
I don't get in between people when I have no voice in the issue.

AND I agree with 100% of Asian @$$.

I knew I liked this guy!!!

-slym

HAD to bump this... edlock is the man!

-slym (

)

marvel1 · Post by **marvel1** » Sat May 19, 2007 9:30 pm

What i dont understand is why bring the subject up when the practice of
illustrating for pay has not been barred/banned by the companies whos property is being infringed(sic) upon.
Until the art police starts knocking down doors, enjoy getting your favorite characters illustrated by your fave artists.
if its a subject that consumes and troubles you moral sensibilities, please stop thinking about it and read the bible. youll find some solace in that. lol
mac

slym2none · Post by **slym2none** » Sat May 19, 2007 9:34 pm

Oops - I didn't mean to bring up bad vibes. Just liked the last two posts!!!

-slym (Lazarus'd this old thread)

x-omatic · Post by **x-omatic** » Sat May 19, 2007 9:35 pm

"No soup for you!!!"