TSB
Artist => Copyrights/Trade Marks info/questions => Topic started by: screenxpress on June 05, 2011, 08:00:24 PM
-
I have a potential job coming my way to print some shirts for "Charley Company" and there's been talk about having an image of Charlie Sheen.
Opinions on print or no-print. And Homer, you don't have to respond. I know your answer, lol
-
Famous? Who's Charlie Sheen, oh wait, he had a famous father, guy named Afro right?
Afro Sheen Ad 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLHZTNGyCpw#noexternalembed)
-
LOL.....I had to check to see if that was a real product too.
-
That . . . is a mess.
-
I wouldn't advise it, Charlie needs to pay for his rehab somehow and has some legal friends.
-
Try this. It's got some good info on the subject.
http://www.graphicartistsguild.org/resources/ask-mark/caricatures/ (http://www.graphicartistsguild.org/resources/ask-mark/caricatures/)
-
Try this. It's got some good info on the subject.
[url]http://www.graphicartistsguild.org/resources/ask-mark/caricatures/[/url] ([url]http://www.graphicartistsguild.org/resources/ask-mark/caricatures/[/url])
Actually, I do not agree with that opinion. The original poster (on the graphicsartguild.com) is told that under no circumstances is he allowed to use somebody's likeness, which is not true!
The fair use of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism or comment is
not an infringement of copyright. See 17 U.S.C. § 107. The idea of fair use
reflects copyright law’s careful consideration of First Amendment principles, as
fair use permits later authors “to use a previous author’s copyright to introduce
new ideas or concepts to the public.”
-
It appears that if the guild had its way completely, many of us would not have been able to cut our teeth on artists like Jack Davis, Will Elder, and Harvey Kurtzman in Humbug and Mad, and the other great satire comix and Mags of our youth.
Then, we have political cartoonists as well. Surely their caricatures of famous people are legitimate fair use.
-
There's copyright - unless you have an original photo or artwork then you will infringe the artists copyright.
Plus there's right to publicity - you have no right to profit from another's likeness.
Politicians have the same right but don't tend to enforce it.
There is a reasonable right to fair use, but that covers newspapers & the like, not t-shirts. Even if it's a cartoon ;)
-
keep in mind, that this is just an educational post and not a job at anyone....
Try this. It's got some good info on the subject.
[url]http://www.graphicartistsguild.org/resources/ask-mark/caricatures/[/url] ([url]http://www.graphicartistsguild.org/resources/ask-mark/caricatures/[/url])
Actually, I do not agree with that opinion. The original poster (on the graphicsartguild.com) is told that under no circumstances is he allowed to use somebody's likeness, which is not true!
The fair use of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism or comment is
not an infringement of copyright. See 17 U.S.C. § 107. The idea of fair use
reflects copyright law’s careful consideration of First Amendment principles, as
fair use permits later authors “to use a previous author’s copyright to introduce
new ideas or concepts to the public.”
You are quoting something that is not connected to what this individual asked. Here it is.
Dear Mark,
As a budding artist, I'd like to know something about behind-the-scenes protocol. I have only one question:
Do you have to request permission or otherwise contract with persons or corporations, (such as Star Trek), before rendering caricatures of them and selling them? The reason I ask is because I would like to sell caricatures on t-shirts of famous and fictional people and am ignorant of copyright law regarding caricatures. I cannot seem to find an answer.
Thank you so much,
T-shirt Trekkie
I would also venture to say that it's not an opinion but fact. A fact based on actual law and past experiences in dealing with the law. Thats what they do.
I tried to go back and read where it might have said "under no circumstances" In fact it does explain under what circumstances. Under the circumstances where you were to get approval by the owner. He says, "in short" you cannot. That would imply that in the long of it, you can find someplace that does enable you as long as you follow the rabbit trail of other laws. It has to fit with some guidelines in order for it to be "fair use".
You just can't create a cartoon that looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger and sell it on tee shirts for mass production and call that fair use.
-
It appears that is the guild had its way completely, many of us would not have been able to cut our teeth on artists like Jack Davis, Will Elder, and Harvey Kurtzman in Humbug and Mad, and the other great satire comix and Mags of our youth.
Then, we have political cartoonists as well. Surely their caricatures of famous people are legitimate fair use.
again, they were not selling them on product but in editorials under the wing of criticism or comment that fall sunder fair use. Mad Magazine is not a product showcasing the art for the sake of selling the art. It is the vehicle to show that criticism or comment.
-
You just can't create a cartoon that looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger and sell it on tee shirts for mass production and call that fair use.
If it is just him and nothing else, that is correct. But if there is a donkey kicking him out of the Governor's office with a tag line "I'll be Back" crossed out, that would be OK. So, yes, under some circumstances it can be done legally.
-
You just can't create a cartoon that looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger and sell it on tee shirts for mass production and call that fair use.
If it is just him and nothing else, that is correct. But if there is a donkey kicking him out of the Governor's office with a tag line "I'll be Back" crossed out, that would be OK. So, yes, under some circumstances it can be done legally.
Ah ha! This my friend is where you learn the ways. The force is strong with you but you have much to learn.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is no longer holding public office that the tax payers pay for. So we can no longer call it "political satire" if he's not a paid politician.
We can no longer get away with making fun of him using his name or likeness and make money from selling product. He's now a private citizen with big money. Not only can he talk that pants off of women, but he can sue the pants off of you.... :)
-
First off, don't get me wrong. I am constantly turning down obvious rip-off, and possible problems. I am just intrigued by the gray area.
So, I have to assume that this is constantly being tested. Likenesses on printed pages in magazines and comics or comix, ok, posters not. Pages torn out and mounted on walls?
Pages made of cotton? Pages printed on shirts?
There must be a gray area still being sorted out.
A different issue, but as for Mad magazine and comics not selling art to showcase art, I feel that you are short changing some brothers in arms for credit. It is the absolute nature of the high end of this genre. Of course I may buy an otherwise funky comic for the Jack Kirby, or other specific artist's work.
In a similar vein, what about this guy, he certainly produces art to be showcased as art. Does he get releases first?
(http://www.brandonbird.com/brandonbird_night_away.jpg)
-
I don't know who those guys are in that art. By the looks of it, it might be a typical situation where a painting done by an artist as a portfolio piece. Many artist can copy other licensed art and show it on a website like http://www.Conceptart.org (http://www.Conceptart.org) or something to show off skills and/or practice and get critiques. Do you know more about this image?
-
That's Jerry Orbach and Sam Waterston over Law and Order fame (together at least).
-
It's a commissioned piece of two characters from Law and Order, also available as prints from the artist, Brandon Bird (http://www.brandonbird.com/paintings.html).
My favorite, is Christopher Walken in his workshop. This guy is as twisted as me, but also has the painterly skills I always lacked.
-
First off, don't get me wrong. I am constantly turning down obvious rip-off, and possible problems. I am just intrigued by the gray area.
So, I have to assume that this is constantly being tested. Likenesses on printed pages in magazines and comics or comix, ok, posters not. Pages torn out and mounted on walls?
Pages made of cotton? Pages printed on shirts?
There must be a gray area still being sorted out.
A different issue, but as for Mad magazine and comics not selling art to showcase art, I feel that you are short changing some brothers in arms for credit. It is the absolute nature of the high end of this genre. Of course I may buy an otherwise funky comic for the Jack Kirby, or other specific artist's work.
In a similar vein, what about this guy, he certainly produces art to be showcased as art. Does he get releases first?
[img]
The power of the press... magazines and newspapers have freedom of speech and can hire artists to embellish their pages with anybody's image they please.
The screen printing press doesn't have that power because you are not printing a medium of journalism, you are making MERCHANDISE for sale.
The painter or sculptor has the freedom to paint or sculpt whomever they want. Put it on merchandise for mass-produced private sale and there's a potential problem.
Journalism and art are protected by the Constitution's wording on free speech. Manufacturing of goods and merchandise doesn't have that protection, in spite of the food industry's lobbying efforts to be allowed to print lies and misinformation on its packaging, for instance.
An artist can make a painting of a Coke bottle with the logo and everything. If the artist tries to make a clothing line out of that painting, "farewell and adeu to you fair Spanish ladies...."
-
First off, don't get me wrong. I am constantly turning down obvious rip-off, and possible problems. I am just intrigued by the gray area.
So, I have to assume that this is constantly being tested. Likenesses on printed pages in magazines and comics or comix, ok, posters not. Pages torn out and mounted on walls?
Pages made of cotton? Pages printed on shirts?
There must be a gray area still being sorted out.
A different issue, but as for Mad magazine and comics not selling art to showcase art, I feel that you are short changing some brothers in arms for credit. It is the absolute nature of the high end of this genre. Of course I may buy an otherwise funky comic for the Jack Kirby, or other specific artist's work.
In a similar vein, what about this guy, he certainly produces art to be showcased as art. Does he get releases first?
[img]
The power of the press... magazines and newspapers have freedom of speech and can hire artists to embellish their pages with anybody's image they please.
The screen printing press doesn't have that power because you are not printing a medium of journalism, you are making MERCHANDISE for sale.
The painter or sculptor has the freedom to paint or sculpt whomever they want. Put it on merchandise for mass-produced private sale and there's a potential problem.
Journalism and art are protected by the Constitution's wording on free speech. Manufacturing of goods and merchandise doesn't have that protection, in spite of the food industry's lobbying efforts to be allowed to print lies and misinformation on its packaging, for instance.
An artist can make a painting of a Coke bottle with the logo and everything. If the artist tries to make a clothing line out of that painting, "farewell and adeu to you fair Spanish ladies...."
Sounds like you are saying that fine or even pop artists can rip off graphic artists, but us T-shirt hacks better tread lightly! lol! So, can Andy Warhol sell posters of his Campbell soup ripoff? How about paintings of paintings? How about posters of paintings of paintings?
-
Wonder if Sheen knows about this one -
http://www.funnyshirts.org/tag/winning?utm_source=msn&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=charlie%20sheen%20shirts&utm_content={k_creative_headline}&utm_campaign=entertainment (http://www.funnyshirts.org/tag/winning?utm_source=msn&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=charlie%20sheen%20shirts&utm_content={k_creative_headline}&utm_campaign=entertainment)
-
I don't know who those guys are in that art. By the looks of it, it might be a typical situation where a painting done by an artist as a portfolio piece. Many artist can copy other licensed art and show it on a website like [url]http://www.Conceptart.org[/url] ([url]http://www.Conceptart.org[/url]) or something to show off skills and/or practice and get critiques. Do you know more about this image?
Jerry Orbach on the left, a major broadway, film and TV guy, see Law and Order. I think the other guys sells for some financial institution ::), and acts too, also Law and Order. Sam Waterson (Picket Fences too)
Steve