Fan Art

>>86290300
You cant advertise others work without giving them credit. There is a fine line between fan art and knockoff

>>86290300
>dust cover up

>>86290300
No, it's the law. Always has been.

File: 1470780293549.png (375KB, 763x960px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 763x960px

>>86290300
>No magazine release
>Dust cover flipped up while firing

>>86290315
Okay, so if it's credited it's legal? As long as you're not profiting, it's legal?

File: 1473921974977.jpg (514KB, 647x1892px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 647x1892px

Rule 6!

>>86290300
>myths
If I’m not making a profit from my fan art, it is legal to draw someone else’s characters.

Thats a fucking massive oversimplification.

>>86290300
Technically it's illegal to sell fanart, but people do it anyway because giant corporations usually don't care unless you're either making major bank or claiming to represent the company.

>>86290300
The fact it is illegal doesn't mean it's enforceable
Sure, if marvel wanted they could easily sue people for making fanart, but there's no real gain from any perspective in doing so
Is someone loading up thousands of dollars by making fanart and selling fanart?
Even then, it's hard to tell if it'd be worth even sending that C&D

Is someone making bootleg stuff of official merchandise? It's jail time, baby

>>86290398
What are you saying is an oversimplification?
>>86290408
Just drawing them is what I really care about. Like if I were to make something really really high quality, like a comic or animation, beyond the original just for fun if that'd be illegal.

>>86290438
>like a comic or animation,
Zone made a business out of animating copyright properties. There are even more idependent artists out there doing the same with comics. As long as you clearly indicate who the character belongs to, and that your work counts as a parody, you'll be fine.

>>86290342
if it's credited, there's a law you're not breaking
that doesn't mean you aren't breaking a different law

>>86290466
though obviously what he's doing doesn't count as parody
and parody protection is laughably weak at the moment for those things that DO count as legit parody/review

the funny thing is i don't feel remotely sympathetic towards artist's alley. It seems like what they're doing is one big obvious middle finger to copyright holders, that makes it harder for those of us doing it individually
like, firstly, you're leaving your house. this is a goddamn endeavor you've made, not just something you're doing for fun
secondly, you've paid money to a fourth party for the right to be there conducting your business
thirdly you're co-whatevering with a bunch of other people. that's practically a co-op you've set up. a pseudo-factory. what the actual hell?

>>86290466
Alright, I mean, if it's legal then... okay.
If it isn't then, wow. Like the idea of drawing things you see on tv or something being illegal. Like, if you don't own it. I can even say drawing anything you see is illegal, like a cup, car, or even a person. In a Christian world I can say it's literally illegal to draw anything you see like the trees, Sky or the animals; I mean, you I didn't make it or own it right?
>>86290550
>>86290555
For real?

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
Read up nothing particularly complicated.

>>86290584
You're overcomplicating things. Drawing fan art isn't illegal.

>>86290466
>As long as you clearly indicate who the character belongs to, and that your work counts as a parody, you'll be fine.

Unless somebody is actually prepared to sue you, in which case you're fucked unless your work genuinely is qualified as parody. You can't just say it is, it has to stand up to test in a courtroom.

>>86290675
Yeah, fan art is not a problem, usually.

It's tricky because if you're any good, obviously there's a risk of your fan art being mistaken for official artwork, so they might ask you to stop producing it - even if you're not producing it for profit - and you might say fuck you, and they might sue your ass back into the stone age... if that is you're really good enough to be mistaken for official art. Like if you were turning out pages and pages of a fan comic, or whole on-model episodes of new material, you'd probably get hit if it was really something people could mistake for the real thing - it doesn't matter in that case that you're not receiving money, because you'd be receiving the next best thing - credit as a creator/producer of works you don't own the rights to.

If you're just doing sketches or whatever nobody's going to care.

> I can even say drawing anything you see is illegal, like a cup, car, or even a person.

No, because cups and cars are concepts - you *could* feasibly get hit eg for using exact likenesses of real cars in video games, which is why they're nearly-accurate in most games (and licensed imagery in others). It's illegal to own a person (in most of the world) so you can't get hit for drawing a person, but -

if you draw a person's likeness and depict them *as that same person that you drew* so you're drawing Sam L Jackson in a comic about Sam L Jackson, well, you better believe your cracker ass is infringing his ownership of his own likeness, and he could indeed sue you, even if you're not producing it for money if the comic depicts him doing something he wouldn't do - which is getting into libel law too.

>>86290757
But to be clear unless you're doing something truly shitty with properties you don't own, even if the owners find out you're doing it, in the first instance they're not going to sue you, just write you and ask that you stop (or read their guidelines on fan projects, which big properties like Star Wars, Star Trek and I believe DC and Marvel all have). If you don't stop when you've been asked in writing... fair warning.

yeah they don't usually just drop the hammer on people for simple fanart. That's bad publicity.

>>86290757
Doesn't satire have its own protections?

>>86290807
So I'm screwed if I decide to make a 30-minute animation of a character I'm a fan of?

>>86290300

Not giving credit is not always illegal but its always unethical thing to do.

Now if you're profiteering from someone else's work without their consent, thats clearly illegal and the usual reason "fan art" or bootlegs get taken down.

Theres a lot of corporate bullshit about piracy laws floating around. Your private ownership protects you from most stuff the shills try to guilt you with, for example drawing fanart of some character, then sharing it to your friends is not illegal no matter how much Disney might hate you for it. In a bigger scale, buying or downloading bootleg/pirated material is not in itself illegal. Torrents are illegal only because they also automatically share the file forward so you're redistributing it, not because you download something with them.

>>86290890

Depends on the owners. Disney tends to be an asshole about it and takes down fanart even made by little children.

Usually as long as you dont get money from it in any way, nobody cares, creator might even like it.

>>86290973
Let me rephrase; So they have a right to screw me if I decide to make a 30-minute animation of a character I'm a fan of for fun?

>>86291014
Yes. They have every legal right to screw you. Doesn't mean they will. Just note that they CAN.

>>86291033
So then what I said >>86290584 then is true after all...

>>86291033
And they probably won't. TV and big franchise movies are more competitive now than ever. The only way to guarantee your huge budget movie will turn a profit is having a solid, enthusiastic, loyal, engaged fanbase. Fanworks are a huge part of what keeps your audience active between official releases. Producers and creators have caught on and most now openly accept it.

>>86291014

No, they can't sue you. Or they can but they wont win because the crime itself is so minimal that no jury or judge will take it seriously. Thats why private ownership and private rights laws are there.

However, they can keep complaining at Newgrounds or Youtube or where-ever you're putting that video up and those sites can comply and remove your video if they feel like it. Youtube is notorious for ignoring the fair use- and satire laws and does whatever the fuck it wants if any corporation goes down on them hard enough.

So if you make that animation (seriously, you need a proper team for a 30 minute animation short unless you want it to look like shit or take 20 years to complete on your own), you don't have to worry about getting lawsuits on your ass. But you do have to prepare for the fact you might have trouble sharing it on certain internet sites.

>>86291063
Not really. What you said there is way too broad an interpretation. The law is actually fairly reasonable. It's not illegal to draw a cup. Nobody owns a cup. It belongs to everyone. If that cup has a unique design, like truly unique, then you could get in trouble there. But a generic cup.

Consider this. In videogames that have guns that are modeled after real life guns, I'm talking about exact replicas of the real thing featured in the game, the game makers has to get permission and pay a license fee to use it from the I.P. owner. I.P. means intellectual property.

>>86290351
You mean Rule 8

>>86291217
I think what we should be concerned with is what the hell happened to rule 10.

>>86290300
It's illegal to sell fan art in the same way it's illegal to be drunk and in charge of a cow in Scotland.

>>86291117

Theres even more leeway in copyright/and IP laws than that. For example: Imagine Mona Lisa would still be IP owned by someone. Now someone else takes a copy of Mona Lisa and draws a moustache to her. That just became an art piece of its own and is not covered by the IP anymore.

Or your example of guns in video games. You can have a model of AK-47 in your game if you simply change its name to some imaginary gun instead. Thing with IP is that the resemblance has to be pretty much exact for the IP to apply. Thats the main reason Games Workshop lost the lawsuit against another firm who had characters sporting ridiculously huge pauldron-armors.

>>86290300
You shouldn't fret about it OP. When Sakimichan gets sued by one of the big three, then you should start to be worried. But until then don't be paranoid and enjoy making the art you want to make. Take a look at how much she makes, and you'll see why this isn't a big deal.

https://www.patreon.com/sakimichan

>>86290351
This is sweet.

File: fine_bros.jpg?w=620.jpg (106KB, 620x382px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 620x382px

I'm assuming fan art is still a thing, because the publishers were smart enough to know something like pic related was gonna end up a shit show

>>86290300
Very few artists own the characters they draw,they're owned by the comic companies.

>>86290408
so why isn't sakimichan being audited by the IRS and all her money taken away because she makes WAY TOO FUCKING MUCH when there are better artists making less?

>>86293050
Technically the artists sign a contract and transfer the copyright of the work they have done to the company on a work for hire basis, in practice yes the company owns all the work but the crucial difference is they don't own it AUTOMATICALLY because it's batmans and they own all drawings of batmans automagically for ever, they just own the trademark for batmans comics and movies and films, meaning they have a monopoly on batmans for that purpose, and they own a shitload of artwork and imagery and design of batmans, but if I draw a batmans it doesn't automatically fly off on it's own to it's master