UNAUTHORIZED PRINTS BEING SOLD OF MY SPIDEY JAM PIECE - Fan Expo Holiday Market. 2 2

[Rick2you2]

On 1/31/2020 at 4:49 AM, Lorne.T said:

As you put this together yourself, is there any way to register it as a unique piece with the copyright office?

 

If so, then you could really dig about and go after the culprit for statutory damages.

Doesn't the copyright have to registered before the work is infringed? Also, better be prepared to share with each of the underlying artists. Correction, you have 3 months after creation to get it registered.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Rick2you2

[Rick2you2]

On 1/31/2020 at 9:18 AM, vodou said:

MY (non-lawyer) understanding of things:

1. Unless the commissioner specifically negotiated with every single artist "for copyright"...he doesn't have it to register.

2. Each individual drawing was however registered automatically at the moment of creation.

3. Without that specific negotiation blahblah, "The whole" doesn't exist (for purposes of copyright, going back to "1" above), only the individually copyrighted (to the artists) contributions...of all those trademarked characters that nobody (commissioner or artists) has given even one thin dime to Disney/Marvel for...something to keep in the back of one's mind...

Not quite.

1. The commissioner does own a copyright on the whole package; he/she created the concept which became an actual object. But, the individual artists also have copyrights. So, there are multiple copyrights on the page, similarly to the way both inkers and pencillers have copyrights (but those aren't "stacked" primarily and secondarily like with the commissioner). Here's where you can register for one, or ten, or more: https://www.copyright.gov/registration/ 

2. The copyrights come into existence when created, but registration is a different process which can get you statutory damages. Otherwise, you are basically left with seeking injunctive relief and actual damages. Good luck on this one.

3. Trademarking is a different issue (thank God). Not everything that is copyrighted is also trademarked. It depends upon things like regular use and how the image is used. There might very well be trademark infringement, but I doubt the companies would complain--they may have consented as they were aware that artists regularly draw famous characters for them.

 

[Canadiancomics]

1 hour ago, Brian Peck said:

Will you have it inked over the pencils or lightboxed? I would go with lightbox.

Morales is inking a blue line print. Definitely not touching the original.

[WoWitHurts]

2 hours ago, AndyFish said:

Well this is not entirely accurate-- I've often gotten permission from publishers to sell prints of my own work that I've done for them, there's never been an issue and most are surprised and happy I even ask.     If you're talking people like the guy at every show with the 30 foot wall of headshots he does of every character from every publisher, yes indeed he's violating the trademark of those characters.   I doubt he's gotten permission or licensed those images.

At a con last year (and I don't remember which show it was) there was a guy selling prints and they were really bad quality-- movie posters, comic pinups, etc-- I come to a Batman '66 image that I did and I tell the dealer I like the work, he tells me he's friends with the artist and he sells the print for him-- I ask him the artists name and he mumbles some name but when I point out the signature and tell him it's me he gets all sheepish and tells me I can have it, or any of his other bootleg prints.   I tell the promoter-- the guy is set up the next day but he's gone the day after.

Unfortunately, there's not much to do, but as fans just remember when you buy these things cheaper than what the artist is selling them for you are likely buying a bootleg.

 

Yeah permission to do something is one thing.  It was nice for you to ask the owner of the copyrighted material permission to sell prints. I suspect the number of people who actually do that is few.

[Canadiancomics]

Think I may have found the culprit, but I’m stilling waiting to confirm. They actually rep an artist who added to my jam. I’ll update the thread once I know for sure. 

[ESeffinga]

If that turns out to be the case, they should have known better.

[RBerman]

4 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

If that turns out to be the case, they should have known better.

There's no question that he knew better. He just didn't think he'd get caught.

[romitaman]

I personally would be flattered to no end if people made copies of my original non published art pieces I own and they were good enough to make money from them...

(I do feel you should have the right to tell them to stop if you don't like this, or they should at least give you some sort of residual...but I've no idea how this could legally be enforced) 

i feel it makes your ORIGINAL DRAWN piece WAY MORE valuable with the more eyes seeing an image of it anywhere!!!

John Romita Sr drew some GREAT Spiderman / Peanuts themed pieces for me years ago.... i'd love to have prints made of those........ and hundreds of other great Romita non published drawings I own........

 if anyone LEGIT wanted to sell them with all proceeds going to a comic artist charity or the APL,  i'd be all for it!!!   

Mike

Edited February 5, 2020 by romitaman

[eewwnuk]

1 hour ago, romitaman said:

 

 if anyone LEGIT wanted to sell them with all proceeds going to a comic artist charity or the APL,  i'd be all for it!!!   

Mike

What if its someone not legit, not authorized and all proceeds went to their own pockets?

[Canadiancomics]

13 hours ago, romitaman said:

I personally would be flattered to no end if people made copies of my original non published art pieces I own and they were good enough to make money from them...

(I do feel you should have the right to tell them to stop if you don't like this, or they should at least give you some sort of residual...but I've no idea how this could legally be enforced) 

i feel it makes your ORIGINAL DRAWN piece WAY MORE valuable with the more eyes seeing an image of it anywhere!!!

John Romita Sr drew some GREAT Spiderman / Peanuts themed pieces for me years ago.... i'd love to have prints made of those........ and hundreds of other great Romita non published drawings I own........

 if anyone LEGIT wanted to sell them with all proceeds going to a comic artist charity or the APL,  i'd be all for it!!!   

Mike

I understand what you’re getting at Mike. I’m glad that people like my jam piece but I hate this circumstance. I’ve declined countless requests for prints, knowing that it’d be wrong for me to be reproducing 20 different artist’s work, and profiting off it. 

But someone who has no affiliation with me, and had nothing to do with the completion of my jam is profiting off not only the artists, but myself. I spent so much time and money to complete that jam, I’d love to make some of that money back by selling prints but I know I can’t, it wouldn’t be right. He is also putting myself at risk, if any of the contributors find out that people have been purchasing prints of my jam, I’ll be the blame. It really infuriates me the more I think about, and I wish I found out about this sooner. It sucks that I’ll probably never find the culprit.

[romitaman]

8 hours ago, Canadiancomics said:

I understand what you’re getting at Mike. I’m glad that people like my jam piece but I hate this circumstance. I’ve declined countless requests for prints, knowing that it’d be wrong for me to be reproducing 20 different artist’s work, and profiting off it. 

But someone who has no affiliation with me, and had nothing to do with the completion of my jam is profiting off not only the artists, but myself. I spent so much time and money to complete that jam, I’d love to make some of that money back by selling prints but I know I can’t, it wouldn’t be right. He is also putting myself at risk, if any of the contributors find out that people have been purchasing prints of my jam, I’ll be the blame. It really infuriates me the more I think about, and I wish I found out about this sooner. It sucks that I’ll probably never find the culprit.

I totally get where you are coming from. It was quite devious for someone to do this without your permission. 

[topcat54]

So how can another artist sell someone else's creation? Call it a recreation?

Like this on the bay 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/AMAZING-SPIDER-MAN-39-WITH-GREEN-GOBLIN-COVER-RECREATION-ORIGINAL-COMIC-ART/283500121773?hash=item4201ec8ead:g:r-wAAOSw6~VbqMqR

[Canadiancomics]

44 minutes ago, topcat54 said:

So how can another artist sell someone else's creation? Call it a recreation?

Like this on the bay 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/AMAZING-SPIDER-MAN-39-WITH-GREEN-GOBLIN-COVER-RECREATION-ORIGINAL-COMIC-ART/283500121773?hash=item4201ec8ead:g:r-wAAOSw6~VbqMqR

Technically they shouldn’t be doing that but at least it was drawn by them. In my case, the guy selling the prints didn’t contribute to the jam nor does he own it.

[RBerman]

2 hours ago, topcat54 said:

So how can another artist sell someone else's creation? Call it a recreation?

Like this on the bay 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/AMAZING-SPIDER-MAN-39-WITH-GREEN-GOBLIN-COVER-RECREATION-ORIGINAL-COMIC-ART/283500121773?hash=item4201ec8ead:g:r-wAAOSw6~VbqMqR

If it's signed by a different artist, it's not a forgery. Is it a copyright violation? I have a Mike Esposito recreation of that same cover.

[comicwiz]

On 2/10/2020 at 6:06 PM, RBerman said:

If it's signed by a different artist, it's not a forgery. Is it a copyright violation? I have a Mike Esposito recreation of that same cover.

Not to get tangential, but merely to demonstrate how this type of thing can become confusing, I was recently asked to provide an opinion on a piece that turned up in the UK. It appeared to be a well executed piece of art that the owner believed was an original published work. It would have been a page from a UK series (pin-up), that first originated from a US series as cover art. It had a few reworked areas of the page when it was published in the UK. The thing is that it was signed by an artist that was not involved with the original work in the US series, and had a barely noticeable attribution using just the initials of the arts who originally produced the art. It also had a date the preceded the original by a year, so it seemed dodgy, but my takeaway was that it was a recreation, and an early one, by an artist who passed away a few years after the recreation was done, and this was before the internet so he just might have got the year wrong when he signed it. So with all these layers, the owner of the piece didn't seem to believe me, and thought I was trying to hustle him, even though everything about the size, the way it was rendered, and the artist who signed his name to the piece would prove they had no hand in producing the original, or the reprinted work for the UK market.

Edited February 13, 2020 by comicwiz

[RBerman]

17 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

Not to get tangential, but merely to demonstrate how this type of thing can become confusing, I was recently asked to provide an opinion on a piece that turned up in the UK. It appeared to be a well executed piece of art that the owner believed was an original published work. It would have been a page from a UK series (pin-up), that first originated from a US series as cover art. It had a few reworked areas of the page when it was published in the UK. The thing is that it was signed by an artist that was not involved with the original work in the US series, and had a barely noticeable attribution using just the initials of the arts who originally produced the art. It also had a date the preceded the original by a year, so it seemed dodgy, but my takeaway was that it was a recreation, and an early one, by an artist who passed away a few years after the recreation was done, and this was before the internet so he just might have got the year wrong when he signed it. So with all these layers, the owner of the piece didn't seem to believe me, and thought I was trying to hustle him, even though everything about the size, the way it was rendered, and the artist who signed his name to the piece would prove they had no hand in producing the original, or the reprinted work for the UK market.

Sad but understandable. Nobody likes to hear that what they bought wasn't what they thought.

[Mephisto]

On 2/5/2020 at 10:39 PM, Bill C said:

I've seen a silver age Flash page (from an issue around #128, don't remember exactly, but I think Flash was standing on an asteroid) that was laminated I think. IIRC, sold by a big name comic dealer to an acquaintance, without telling the buyer it was laminated. It was returned I believe.

I recall this page was at one time laminated. https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=740033

I'm not sure if the owner was able to get it freed. I don't see mention of it in the description any longer but if you read the comments people left one of them mentions the piece being laminated. 

[Canadiancomics]

Not sure if any of you are still following this thread but I’ve got an update. Been thinking lately about how odd this whole situation was, and decided to move my attention elsewhere. As I suspected, I don’t think someone was selling prints of my jam after all. The guy who supposedly purchased the print told me he found it at a local show that took place on December 7th. I just realized that the photo he posted of his room (with my print on his wall) was posted on November 30th... days before the con even took place. I think you all can tell where this is going. Can’t believe it took me this long to figure it out.

[Rick2you2]

On 2/13/2020 at 10:44 AM, comicwiz said:

Not to get tangential, but merely to demonstrate how this type of thing can become confusing, I was recently asked to provide an opinion on a piece that turned up in the UK. It appeared to be a well executed piece of art that the owner believed was an original published work. It would have been a page from a UK series (pin-up), that first originated from a US series as cover art. It had a few reworked areas of the page when it was published in the UK. The thing is that it was signed by an artist that was not involved with the original work in the US series, and had a barely noticeable attribution using just the initials of the arts who originally produced the art. It also had a date the preceded the original by a year, so it seemed dodgy, but my takeaway was that it was a recreation, and an early one, by an artist who passed away a few years after the recreation was done, and this was before the internet so he just might have got the year wrong when he signed it. So with all these layers, the owner of the piece didn't seem to believe me, and thought I was trying to hustle him, even though everything about the size, the way it was rendered, and the artist who signed his name to the piece would prove they had no hand in producing the original, or the reprinted work for the UK market.

There is another intellectual property type dispute involving the sale of misleading products that appear similar and which may not be out and out use of someone else’s copyrighted product. It is part of the Latham Act, which you can find on Wikipedia (skip the legalities), You can also get sued for misappropriating a products “trade dress”. 

[Bird]

6 hours ago, Canadiancomics said:

Not sure if any of you are still following this thread but I’ve got an update. Been thinking lately about how odd this whole situation was, and decided to move my attention elsewhere. As I suspected, I don’t think someone was selling prints of my jam after all. The guy who supposedly purchased the print told me he found it at a local show that took place on December 7th. I just realized that the photo he posted of his room (with my print on his wall) was posted on November 30th... days before the con even took place. I think you all can tell where this is going. Can’t believe it took me this long to figure it out.

one of the artists or their reps is selling the print, right?