Custom T-Shirt....is it legal?

[yellow]

It's legal to draw a cartoon of a politician, give him/her a word balloon saying "Vote for me - I'm not as slimy as the other guy!", and sell it to a newspaper, so it's not the case that all drawings of all people require their permission, even for something sold commercially. The Cornell quote doesn't cover that exception, so there's more to it than meets the eye.

Actually, I don't think it is..

Under the Lanham Act:

http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001125----000-.html

§ 1125. False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 22 > SUBCHAPTER III > § 1125 Prev | Next

§ 1125. False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

How Current is This?

(a) Civil action
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities,
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
(2) As used in this subsection, the term “any person” includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
(3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this chapter for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional.

But I'm no lawyer. Legalese makes my eyes cross...

 

[LethalWolfe]

i wish to expand into more, but if people dont ask for it, how can i?

Make some original art, maybe? Look around your area for anyone that needs graphic art type work? You can't expect to branch out if you don't show people that you can branch out.

anyway, im appreciating all this back and forth, though I sincerely doubt we will EVER come to any true conclusion.

No, the conclusion seems pretty clear. You are violating copyright law. Whether one believes the current state of the law is just or not is, of course, completely up to debate though.

google for questions like this and there is only half-cocked answers, even from legal sites dealing with copyright. there is nothing specific to "fan-art" which is I guess what my work falls under.

Commercial vs. non-commerical is a better way to look at it. Getting paid to draw the monkey from Family Guy is a commercial endeavor. You are using someone else's IP w/o permission to generate money for yourself. That violates copyright law. You are also depriving the copyright holder of income because instead of buying an officially licensed image of the monkey from Family Guy your client is buying a bootleg image from you.

and again, I dont paint and then sell, I paint ONLY what a client asks and then pays for. i just cant see myself painting image after image and just letting them pile up while I look for a customer. commission is the ONLY way to paint! (when u arent in it for the glory)

Whether you stockpile or only do custom orders is completely irrelevant.
Going back to my wedding videographer example, the videographer only does what the client asks, but that doesn't make the inclusion of unlicensed music any less a violation of copyright law.

Doctor Q,
Like I said in my post things like parody and satire provide exceptions to copyright law. Here is a link to copyright info in layman's terms told as a comic book incase anyone is interested, link. There are a lot of examples of copyright usage that can be very murky and live in the "well, it depends" areas of the law, but I don't think Sdashiki's business of selling unofficial reproductions of copyrighted material is one of them.


Lethal

 

[yellow]

Of course, none of this changes the fact that I'd like to have an unlicensed copy of the sailboat picture from The Simpson's living room for my office.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Of course, none of this changes the fact that I'd like to have an unlicensed copy of the sailboat picture from The Simpson's living room for my office.

It's definitely a subtle, yet still recognizable reference if you are a fan. Having a picture of Homer or Bart would definitely be harder to hang in a business settings.


Lethal

 

[AlohaDave]

Image Copyright Rules

Having been in the business a long time I can tell you that tracing an image of a copyright or trademarked image and reselling it is illegal. A rule of thumb is if you held up your image and the copyrighted image in front of a judge in court could he tell you copied it. There is still a mistaken idea that if you take an image and change it 10% then it is new. This in not true. The only way you could sell your images is in small quantities becuase the large companies will not bother to come after you.

 

[Doctor Q]

I seriously doubt that political cartoons aren't legal. Otherwise, the "powers that be" would certainly get after those annoying cartoonists. Maybe the "journalist" title affords protection? If so, maybe you can publish a newspaper on canvas, or on T-shirts, in order to beat the system.

 

[Snark]

I seriously doubt that political cartoons aren't legal. Otherwise, the "powers that be" would certainly get after those annoying cartoonists. Maybe the "journalist" title affords protection?

Political cartoons come under the umbrella of fair use/parody/news. Even then, you can still suffer consequences by way of defamation/libel problems if you get too sloppy.

Snark

 

[macaddicted]

google for questions like this and there is only half-cocked answers, even from legal sites dealing with copyright. there is nothing specific to "fan-art" which is I guess what my work falls under.

Paramount shut down a substantial number of non-commercial fan sites for Star Trek and its spin-offs a number of years ago.

and again, I dont paint and then sell, I paint ONLY what a client asks and then pays for. i just cant see myself painting image after image and just letting them pile up while I look for a customer. commission is the ONLY way to paint! (when u arent in it for the glory)

The fact that you are doing the art on commission doesn't change the fact that you are making money based on someone else's intellectual property.

 

[iMeowbot]

What's the difference between the political cartoon and Chuck Norris T-shirts?

In the US version of all this, the First Amendment wins over publicity rights for incidental uses, and when some statement is being made about the public figure. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

Outright exploitation of likenesses without significant original content didn't work for the guy who make the Stooges drawings, and it also didn't work for the producers of the old Beatlemania stage show and film, who lost $10 million in a suit from Apple (the other one) over the issue.

 

[macdon401]

this thread is kinda reminding me of the, "got a new iMac dude, see pics"
it just keeps going on and on and on and on....pathetic...LOL!
R

 

[Doctor Q]

it just keeps going on and on and on and on....

We can stop anytime we want to, right guys?

Speaking of guys, here is an interesting licensing notice on a page about one of my heroes:

It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement.

 

[wongulous]

you want something painted, are you going to just say you can never have one because the subject is something "copyrighted"...

Yes. Yes, I would. Legality is legality, and respect for original content creators is important. Shame on you.

 

[2ndPath]

The fact that you are doing the art on commission doesn't change the fact that you are making money based on someone else's intellectual property.

So he is earning money for painting cartoon characters and thus infringing the copyright. So is it the same if someone sends a photograph containing, for example, a cartoon character to a photo printing service? Can the printing service be sued for doing this?

 

[iMeowbot]

So he is earning money for painting cartoon characters and thus infringing the copyright. So is it the same if someone sends a photograph containing, for example, a cartoon character to a photo printing service? Can the printing service be sued for doing this?

Yes. Both photo labs and copy shops are increasingly picky about what work they will accept. It can even be tough to get photos of yourself copied if they look like they may have been commercially produced.

 

[makku]

Not to hijack the thread and this is pretty popular topic but have anyone noticed that the mascot for "Kids Zone" on http://www.fcc.gov looks somewhat like Doraemon?
The FCC has said that "Broadband" the cat is an original character and have ignored repeated request by the copyright holder of Doraemon to stop using the character.

So to the OP I think you will be fine if you change the clothing or the skin color of Homer or whatever character you wish to draw .

 

[Edot]

I'll buy one of your paintings, paint my own version of "your" cartoons, and make some money. Actually I think I will just use a photocopier, so I don't have to spend the time. Now that I think about it, I might as well just make copies of the original cartoons. Of course, nothing about this sounds wrong to me.

Think of your OWN cartoons!! I can't believe you are referring to yourself as an artist when all you do is copy other people's work! Personally, I would call you a Xerox. Quit whinning and be a respectful artist. One that respects other people's original work.

 

[MongoTheGeek]

If you draw the whatever you will be fine for copyright purposes.

If you copy part of it then it is a derivative work and you might be in some trouble depending on how similar it is. Hand drawn version of movie scene, you should be almost entirely in the clear. Especially if the perspective differs.

The biggest problem is that you may run into trademark violations. That is why you can't rip off Mickey Mouse T-Shirts and why the "Black Bart" t-shirt people got into trouble. The question is did they trademark it, did they trademark it for apparel.

I am not a lawyer, I just line them up against the wall.

 

[macdon401]

...Im thinking of making lunch boxes, bedsheets and posters out of this ORIGINAL collage I made cause a friend asked me to...i don't think I will get into any trouble...you know a friend did ask!
What do you think ...come on give this up...LOL!
R

 

[7on]

This has me wondering too.

Why would stuff like Roy Litchenstein's pop art pieces not fall under copyrighted images?

and would something like this be copyrighted?

No because I changed it a little or yes it's a copyrighted lyric and pop character therefore illegal (if I sold it)?

 

[iMeowbot]

Why would stuff like Roy Litchenstein's pop art pieces not fall under copyrighted images?

They did, and he received some threats at the time that were never carried out. He also stopped the outright plagiarism by the mid-1960s, when the world was still a little less litigious.

and would something like this be copyrighted?
http://web.mac.com/jonshipman/jetz.jpg

Absolutely. It's a derivative work, so both you and they nominally have some rights in it.

No because I changed it a little or yes it's a copyrighted lyric and pop character therefore illegal (if I sold it)?

The answer is "maybe" because you're flirting with both trademarks and copyright, and fair dealing/fair use have really squishy definitions and standards that vary all over the world. Historically, Lucas and co. have tended to ignore fan art, but character licensing is a huge business for them and they would likely say something if a significant amount of money was involved.

 

[ATD]

they would likely say something if a significant amount of money was involved.

That's the bottom line. While a lot that's been talked about here is technically illegal, many of these entities will not go after things like fan art. After all their fans, it's not good PR to sue them. Once fan art becomes a business and enough money is involved, the dynamic changes. I have dealt with creating advertising art for Disney, Lucas and the Simpsons and I have to say they exercise extremely tight control over what is legitimately produced. I could only imagine the energy they put into going after what they see as threat. You can talk back and forth about all the legal points you want but it is the creator that decides when that fine line is crossed.

 

[2ndPath]

I'll buy one of your paintings, paint my own version of "your" cartoons, and make some money. Actually I think I will just use a photocopier, so I don't have to spend the time. Now that I think about it, I might as well just make copies of the original cartoons. Of course, nothing about this sounds wrong to me.

Think of your OWN cartoons!! I can't believe you are referring to yourself as an artist when all you do is copy other people's work! Personally, I would call you a Xerox. Quit whinning and be a respectful artist. One that respects other people's original work.

Artist covers a very wide range of poeple. Lots of painters in the past made most of their paintings showing portraits of poeple, who wanted to be painted and paid for it. Which is essentially what he is doing - paintig people, which in this case are fictional ones.

 

[Edot]

Artist covers a very wide range of poeple. Lots of painters in the past made most of their paintings showing portraits of poeple, who wanted to be painted and paid for it. Which is essentially what he is doing - paintig people, which in this case are fictional ones.

I agree with you, they are called painters not artists.

 

[Flowbee]

Artist covers a very wide range of poeple. Lots of painters in the past made most of their paintings showing portraits of poeple, who wanted to be painted and paid for it. Which is essentially what he is doing - paintig people, which in this case are fictional ones.

Yeah, if Bart Simpson comes to me and asks me to paint his portrait I'm not going to tell him "Sorry, I can't. You're a copyrighted character". Right?

 

[2ndPath]

I agree with you, they are called painters not artists.

Right, not every painter is necessarily an artist. But the fact that he is painting comic characters does not disqualify him from being one. And if he paints this character in his own "style" then he might already be considered an artist.

Yeah, if Bart Simpson comes to me and asks me to paint his portrait I'm not going to tell him "Sorry, I can't. You're a copyrighted character". Right?

I think this is a legal question and not the question whether it is art or not.