Personal Project: I printed my own personal "Artist Edition" style hardcover book to showcase my favorite commissions 1 1

[ESeffinga]

13 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Adding an actual printed cover to a comic may change things if the copyright for the cover was registered (and if the publisher gave a dam’n). 

This is the part I am most specifically attempting to address in my previous post, regarding the OML theme and the proposal floated of having the printed covers on one side and then the OML commissions on the other. Given the art that is most often represented by the OML theme is from DC or Marvel, and the profile those companies and their properties have these days... as they most definitely are and do.

I don’t know that the companies or their lawyers would ever even know this existed unless posted publicly, so if it were me, I’d keep its existence quiet if it ever came to be, and enjoy it for myself. Chances are the worst thing that would happen would be a cease and desist type letter. And knowing this was a one off, it’d be a moot gesture. But none of that will be very persuasive if the printing company themselves doesn’t want to do it, as it is technically not legal, and many printing companies shy away from any legal gray area if they can avoid it. Assuming anyone in the company is aware of its illegality in the first place. Most layman have no clue how trademarks and copyrights work, and what is and isn’t allowable. Which is part of why so much breaking of these have become a part of the mainstream of the internet, and the sharing of images (and music, and movies etc). The whole Napsterization of the web, and art of all kinds. It has had its good and bad fallout. 
 

Long way of saying, while not technically “legal”, I don’t see any legal problem arising, so long as it’s a one off, and you find someone willing to do it. And don’t show it around online.
 

And being aware those companies would frown on it. Though, if they crack down it will be on the printing company. Otherwise they are turning a blind eye to copyright infringement, and that opens the floodgates to all kinds of personal one off Marvel and DC “tribute” books people could be making for themselves, using their IP, their trademarked material, and ultimately their copyrighted work.

And that opens the door of protect it or lose it. And yeah, they turn a blind eye to creators making their own sketchbooks and prints using their characters, but that is those creators’ artwork. Not preprinted work by other artists. That’s a whole other kettle of fish. 

 

Edited January 1, 2021 by ESeffinga

[Rick2you2]

^^^ General agreement.

So long as the book is for personal use, I doubt they will care. Look at all the copyright violators we have here who post copies of comic pages and covers. When I go to shows, I often see merchandise like T shirts and pillows sold with a comic company’s art as well as characters ( thereby add trademark violations into the mix). Do they pursue those vendors where real money, albeit small, is at stake? 

[vodou]

52 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

^^^ General agreement.

So long as the book is for personal use, I doubt they will care. Look at all the copyright violators we have here who post copies of comic pages and covers. When I go to shows, I often see merchandise like T shirts and pillows sold with a comic company’s art as well as characters ( thereby add trademark violations into the mix). Do they pursue those vendors where real money, albeit small, is at stake? 

Another approach would be adding substantive (DYODD) text for the entire 'object' to fall under Fair Use Exemption. It would be good to get an informed legal opinion on how high the hurdle to overcome though; that would not be me.

Another aspect, as a defense (a position on would try to avoid to begin with, of course)...how long have those OML commissions been publicly viewable on CAF...a decade? longer? and where were these copyright/trademark holders all those years? Again, a pushback there in defense but my comment above is the better route I think.

[hmendryk]

Personal copies of copyright material have always been considered fair use and therefore legal. If the printing company decided on their own to make copies for sale, the legal problem would be theirs, not the person who made the original order.

 

[The Voord]

On 12/30/2020 at 4:54 PM, Michael (OML)1 said:

I love this and would love to do something similar with my "One Minute Later" theme.  How many pages does your book run?  

And, I'd love advice from the board -- seriously - do I put the original cover on the left (as published) and the OML on the right, both 11 x 17?  Thoughts?

Well, if you published the original covers on the right hand side, you could call those pages, 'One Minute Before'  

Edited January 1, 2021 by The Voord

[Rick2you2]

52 minutes ago, hmendryk said:

Personal copies of copyright material have always been considered fair use and therefore legal. If the printing company decided on their own to make copies for sale, the legal problem would be theirs, not the person who made the original order.

 

Technically, I disagree. Fair use is an affirmative defense to copyright violation, established on a case by case basis. It is not “educational”, for purposes of “criticism or comment”, or scholarly, for examples. It is too new to be in the public domain. So, if copied, it is a violation—but no one is going to pursue you for the violation unless you decide you want to sell it. No harm. No foul.

[ESeffinga]

1 hour ago, Rick2you2 said:

Technically, I disagree. Fair use is an affirmative defense to copyright violation, established on a case by case basis. It is not “educational”, for purposes of “criticism or comment”, or scholarly, for examples. It is too new to be in the public domain. So, if copied, it is a violation—but no one is going to pursue you for the violation unless you decide you want to sell it. No harm. No foul.

Exactly so. We could chase this down, but I don’t want to take the thread off the rails. Enough has been said to explain the ins and outs of the project. 

It suffices to say that by taking someone’s money to print them a copy of someone else’s copyrighted material, whether it is one or one thousand, is technically illegal on the part of the printer. So you can claim whatever you like. It does not make it legal. It is at its essence the point of who owns the right to produce a copy.

If you printed a book yourself on your own printer, fine. Once you pay someone else, all that goes away.

FWIW.

Beyond this we are talking semantics, and gray theory of what can be done and by whom.

Edited January 1, 2021 by ESeffinga

[hmendryk]

4 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Technically, I disagree. Fair use is an affirmative defense to copyright violation, established on a case by case basis. It is not “educational”, for purposes of “criticism or comment”, or scholarly, for examples. It is too new to be in the public domain. So, if copied, it is a violation—but no one is going to pursue you for the violation unless you decide you want to sell it. No harm. No foul.

Yes fair use is a case by case basis. But then again all use of copyright material may have to be defended on a case by case basis. Copiers are installed in libraries, equipment is sold for recording television and scanners are marketed that can copy images. All with the knowledge that the copied material may have copyrights. But the understanding is that it will be for personal use and not for distribution. Stay within those parameters and not only will no one be likely to pursue a copyright claim against you, it would be extremely unlikely for them to succeed if they did.

[Rick2you2]

1 hour ago, hmendryk said:

Yes fair use is a case by case basis. But then again all use of copyright material may have to be defended on a case by case basis. Copiers are installed in libraries, equipment is sold for recording television and scanners are marketed that can copy images. All with the knowledge that the copied material may have copyrights. But the understanding is that it will be for personal use and not for distribution. Stay within those parameters and not only will no one be likely to pursue a copyright claim against you, it would be extremely unlikely for them to succeed if they did.

We are splitting hairs. There is no practical difference between a violation which won’t be enforced and no violation. 

[MisterX1964]

This book you created is beautiful , and I was thinking about doing one like this for myself. Can you recommend a printer for this? Thanks !!