COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN MINNESOTA
1 1

75 posts in this topic

49,443 posts
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, sckao said:

I'm not a lawyer but everything this guy states cannot be true.  I cant believe someone can be sued for drawing wolverine in their sketchbook or an 8 year old's parents can be sued if he draws spiderman on his placemat at Arby's.

Ps does anyone else experience bleeding cool site takes forever to load now?

Edited by kav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
929 posts
4 hours ago, Bird said:

They have a chat feature and I wrote the following

I just wanted to point out that the kiosk Canvas Studio is selling works that they do not hold copyright to and hope that the Mall of America can takes steps to protect the copyrights that are being exploited by one of their vendors. Unless of course the MoA condones this behavior?

 

I didn't stay to chat though. Go get them Alex!

thanks alot sean, much appreciated. i agree that MOA has an interest in it's tenants not conducting illegal activity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49,443 posts
4 minutes ago, www.alexgross.com said:

thanks alot sean, much appreciated. i agree that MOA has an interest in it's tenants not conducting illegal activity. 

Pretty sure they'll go what we had no idea you gotta go bruh!!!  keep us posted!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
929 posts
1 hour ago, kav said:

I'm not a lawyer but everything this guy states cannot be true.  I cant believe someone can be sued for drawing wolverine in their sketchbook or an 8 year old's parents can be sued if he draws spiderman on his placemat at Arby's.

Ps does anyone else experience bleeding cool site takes forever to load now?

he doesnt seem to know what he's talking about. for some context, i published a book in 2012, with a major american/german publisher. all the content was like the image below. the publisher's IP attornies told us that they were confident that this is protected expression via first amendment and ruling on parody. i am publishing a folowup this year, with same publisher, also containing tons of parody images like this. 

bane-before-after.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49,443 posts
3 minutes ago, www.alexgross.com said:

he doesnt seem to know what he's talking about. for some context, i published a book in 2012, with a major american/german publisher. all the content was like the image below. the publisher's IP attornies told us that they were confident that this is protected expression via first amendment and ruling on parody. i am publishing a folowup this year, with same publisher, also containing tons of parody images like this. 

bane-before-after.jpg

I've had this debate so many times with people-lawyers are all over the map and can mostly just be disregarded I guess.  The lawyer in that article said several things that followed to their logical end were simply absurd.  No an 8 year old drawing spiderman on a place mat is not breaking the law!!!!  Not even close bruh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,823 posts

My question had nothing to do with whether or not parody imagery is infringement.

I was curious if copyrighting such imagery is possible. I have no idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49,443 posts

Darth Vader riding unicorn def falls under 'parody'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,184 posts
7 minutes ago, www.alexgross.com said:

he doesnt seem to know what he's talking about. for some context, i published a book in 2012, with a major american/german publisher. all the content was like the image below. the publisher's IP attornies told us that they were confident that this is protected expression via first amendment and ruling on parody. i am publishing a folowup this year, with same publisher, also containing tons of parody images like this. 

bane-before-after.jpg

I would be willing to bet that photo on the left was taken prior to 1923. If so, it is a public domain photo and has no bearing on what has been talked about in this thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49,443 posts
5 minutes ago, Shrevvy said:

I would be willing to bet that photo on the left was taken prior to 1923. If so, it is a public domain photo and has no bearing on what has been talked about in this thread. 

I think he was referring to the comic character on right that is not in public domain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,184 posts
2 minutes ago, kav said:

I think he was referring to the comic character on right that is not in public domain.

Thank you. I am only partially ashamed to say that I was not aware that was a comic character...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49,443 posts
2 minutes ago, Shrevvy said:

Thank you. I am only partially ashamed to say that I was not aware that was a comic character...

You're a top notch person for not knowing about that doltish mumbling character from Batman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,057 posts
7 hours ago, www.alexgross.com said:

thanks for all the suggestions that painting a copyrighted character is a trademark violation. just FYI, it's not. you can paint whatever you want. if you choose to make multiples, legal precedent has established that as long as a work can be considered "transformative," it is not a copyright violation. parody is also protected under the first amendment as i'm sure all boardies are aware. 

this seller is more likely relying on the idea that none of these artists will ever discover that he has stolen their work. 

but thanks for all the support here. 

You would be about the 10,000 person to post up something on the boards here - looking for support - and being disappointed by the replies and feedback. Welcome to the large and ever growing club. 

You really, really need to check out the links above posted by sckao.  You don't have a for sure legal right to use Darth Vader's image. I was mistaken in my first comment on this to say you should act to protect your copyrighted work. You cannot possibly own a copyright on an image of Darth Vader.  And Disney has a reputation of being an IP enforcer of the max degree. The consensus of those commenting here is probably correct. It might be unwise draw tons of attention to this. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49,443 posts
8 minutes ago, Tony S said:

You would be about the 10,000 person to post up something on the boards here - looking for support - and being disappointed by the replies and feedback. Welcome to the large and ever growing club. 

You really, really need to check out the links above posted by sckao.  You don't have a for sure legal right to use Darth Vader's image. I was mistaken in my first comment on this to say you should act to protect your copyrighted work. You cannot possibly own a copyright on an image of Darth Vader.  And Disney has a reputation of being an IP enforcer of the max degree. The consensus of those commenting here is probably correct. It might be unwise draw tons of attention to this. 

 

But the image is parody-and Mad magazine parodied mickey mouse all day long, and held the copyright to that parody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,057 posts
2 hours ago, kav said:

I've had this debate so many times with people-lawyers are all over the map and can mostly just be disregarded I guess.  The lawyer in that article said several things that followed to their logical end were simply absurd.  No an 8 year old drawing spiderman on a place mat is not breaking the law!!!!  Not even close bruh.

Just because copyright holders don't try to chase after every violation does keep mean those things are not violations.  The original....point of many of the discussions here is that the OP cannot possibly have a copyright on an image that features Darth Vader.  And would probably be wise not to bring a great deal of attention to it. Least Disney's lawyers decide to weigh in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49,443 posts
2 minutes ago, Tony S said:

Just because copyright holders don't try to chase after every violation does keep mean those things are not violations.  The original....point of many of the discussions here is that the OP cannot possibly have a copyright on an image that features Darth Vader.  And would probably be wise not to bring a great deal of attention to it. Least Disney's lawyers decide to weigh in. 

See above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,057 posts
3 minutes ago, kav said:

But the image is parody-and Mad magazine parodied mickey mouse all day long, and held the copyright to that parody.

Three words

Air Pirate Funnies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49,443 posts
3 minutes ago, Tony S said:

Three words

Air Pirate Funnies.

wonder why mad could do it not him.  was there sexual content because that would be a separate issue I believe.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,057 posts
1 minute ago, kav said:

wonder why mad could do it not him.  was there sexual content because that would be a separate issue I believe.  

It's not a "separate issue". It's Disney -who owns the copyright and trademark to both Mickey Mouse and Darth Vader - deciding when they feel they should protect said IP rights. 

So what people have been saying here is that Disney doesn't seem to want to shut down artists at con's eking out a living selling sketches and prints of characters Disney owns to fans.  Disney COULD sue those artists  if they wanted. But are choosing not to. BUT>>> if one of those artists sued someone else for copying their work  - work which actually features Disney owned characters,  Disney might well decide they had to step in and make it clear ONLY DISNEY owns Darth Vader and any likeness. NO ONE ELSE is allowed to enforce any IP claims. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49,443 posts
1 minute ago, Tony S said:

It's not a "separate issue". It's Disney -who owns the copyright and trademark to both Mickey Mouse and Darth Vader - deciding when they feel they should protect said IP rights. 

So what people have been saying here is that Disney doesn't seem to want to shut down artists at con's eking out a living selling sketches and prints of characters Disney owns to fans.  Disney COULD sue those artists  if they wanted. But are choosing not to. BUT>>> if one of those artists sued someone else for copying their work  - work which actually features Disney owned characters,  Disney might well decide they had to step in and make it clear ONLY DISNEY owns Darth Vader and any likeness. NO ONE ELSE is allowed to enforce any IP claims. 

 

But Mad parodied mickey no problem.  The only reason I can think air pirates couldnt was some kind of defamation showing mickey being nasty.  Like the amy grant suit for the doc strange cover-they didnt sue for using her likeness but for showing her as an occult figure and apparently she is religious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,057 posts
1 minute ago, kav said:

But Mad parodied mickey no problem.  The only reason I can think air pirates couldnt was some kind of defamation showing mickey being nasty.  Like the amy grant suit for the doc strange cover-they didnt sue for using her likeness but for showing her as an occult figure and apparently she is religious.

Yes......
you are really now making my and other's point.

You don't tug on superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off that old lone ranger
And you don't mess around with Disney. 

Maybe it will go OK. Maybe it will go really bad.  Fact is Disney has more $$ than a lot of countries. It's not going well for the (unlicensed, unauthorized artist) if Disney takes an interest. 

Amy Grant? "Apparently" religious? Was that a joke?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1